AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The claimant, a New Mexico resident, was injured on June 6, 1988, while working at a construction site in Kayenta, Arizona, for G & S Masonry, a Colorado corporation. The claimant had been employed on an as-needed basis by G & S Masonry, working at various job sites in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. Prior to the injury, the claimant had worked extensively in New Mexico for G & S Masonry, but at the time of the accident, he was working under a contract of hire made in Arizona (paras 2-4, 6).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: Denied the claimant's request for benefits under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act, ruling that the Act's extraterritorial coverage did not apply to the claimant's injury in Arizona.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Claimant): Argued that his employment was principally localized in New Mexico, as he had worked extensively in the state for G & S Masonry and was domiciled there. He contended that the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act should apply to his injury in Arizona (paras 5, 7, 21).
• Respondents (G & S Masonry and Insurers): Asserted that the claimant's employment was not principally localized in New Mexico and that the contract of hire was made in Arizona, thereby excluding the injury from the coverage of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act (paras 6-8).

Legal Issues

• Was the claimant's employment "principally localized" in New Mexico under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act?
• Did the contract of hire made in Arizona preclude the application of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Administration and held that the claimant's employment was principally localized in New Mexico, entitling him to benefits under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act (para 22).

Reasons

Per Hartz J. (Minzner C.J. and Chavez J. concurring):

• The court analyzed the extraterritorial coverage provisions of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act, specifically NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-64, which allows coverage for injuries outside the state if the employment is principally localized in New Mexico (para 5).
• The court determined that the claimant's employment was not principally localized in Arizona because G & S Masonry did not have a "place of business" in Arizona. The construction site in Kayenta did not meet the criteria for a "place of business," as it lacked permanence and office facilities (paras 9-16).
• The court found that the claimant's employment was principally localized in New Mexico because he was domiciled there and had spent a substantial part of his working time in New Mexico. The court considered the claimant's extensive work history with G & S Masonry in New Mexico and the likelihood of future work in the state (paras 17-21).
• The court concluded that the claimant was entitled to benefits under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 22).