This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A New Mexico resident was injured in Nevada while working for an employer whose primary business was in Iowa but conducted operations in New Mexico. The worker was offered employment directly in Nevada after accompanying her husband, who had been hired in New Mexico. The worker accepted the job in Nevada and was injured shortly after starting work, incurring medical expenses. The worker sought workers' compensation benefits under New Mexico law (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- Nevada Workers' Compensation Agency: Denied the worker's claim, concluding she was an out-of-state employee temporarily in Nevada and that the employer lacked coverage in Nevada (para 5).
- New Mexico Department of Labor Workers' Compensation Division: Denied the worker's claim, finding that the contract of hire was made in Nevada and not in New Mexico, thus failing to meet the extraterritorial coverage requirements under New Mexico law (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the contract of hire was made in New Mexico, that the Nevada agency's findings should be given full faith and credit, and that the employer should be estopped from denying coverage due to representations made to her and the hospital regarding medical expenses (paras 2, 20, 25).
- Respondents (Employer and Insurer): Contended that the contract of hire was formed in Nevada, that the Nevada agency's findings did not determine the place of hire, and that the employer's representations did not establish estoppel under workers' compensation law (paras 15, 21, 25).
Legal Issues
- Was the worker's contract of hire made in New Mexico, thereby meeting the extraterritorial coverage requirements under New Mexico's Workers' Compensation Act?
- Should full faith and credit be given to the Nevada agency's findings regarding the worker's employment status?
- Is the employer estopped from denying workers' compensation coverage due to representations made to the worker and the hospital?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the denial of workers' compensation benefits was affirmed (para 30).
Reasons
Per Rudy S. Apodaca, Judge:
Contract of Hire: The court determined that the contract of hire was formed in Nevada, as the worker was unaware of the job offer until she arrived in Nevada and accepted it there. The statutory requirement under Section 52-1-64 for the contract to be made in New Mexico was not met. The court emphasized that the place of contract formation is determined by where the offer is accepted (paras 7-15).
Full Faith and Credit: The Nevada agency's findings were given due consideration but did not address where the contract of hire was made. The court held that full faith and credit principles did not preclude the New Mexico judge from determining the place of contract formation independently (paras 20-24).
Estoppel: The court found no evidence that the worker relied on the employer's representations to accept the job or change her position. The employer's assurances regarding medical expenses did not specifically guarantee workers' compensation coverage and did not meet the legal requirements for estoppel (paras 25-27).
The court concluded that the worker did not qualify for benefits under New Mexico's Workers' Compensation Act and affirmed the denial of her claim (para 30).