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 worker injured his lower back at work on November 18, 1985. The employer, Highlands University, voluntarily paid total temporary disability benefits from the date of injury. Later, the employer sought to decrease or suspend the worker's benefits and requested credit for benefits already paid. The worker's entitlement to benefits, including whether his temporomandibular joint condition was causally related to the injury, was contested (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Highlands University v. Baca, 1991-NMCA-099: The Court of Appeals held that the worker's past benefits were not in jeopardy and that the workers' compensation judge erred in calculating attorney fees based on past benefits (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Worker): Argued that all past benefits were in jeopardy due to the employer's request for credit for benefits paid and that attorney fees were properly calculated based on the preservation of these benefits (paras 4, 8).
- Respondent (Employer): Contended that past benefits were not in jeopardy as no refund was sought, and attorney fees should not have been calculated based on past benefits (paras 4, 8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the worker's past benefits were in jeopardy due to the employer's request for credit for benefits paid.
- Whether the workers' compensation judge properly included past benefits in calculating attorney fees under Section 52-1-54 of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the workers' compensation judge's award of attorney fees (para 11).
Reasons
Per Franchini J. (Ransom C.J. and Montgomery J. concurring):
The Court found that the employer's request for credit for benefits paid placed all past benefits in jeopardy, as offsets against future benefits could effectively require the worker to refund past benefits. This justified the workers' compensation judge's inclusion of past benefits in calculating attorney fees (paras 6-8). The Court emphasized that attorney fees in workers' compensation cases should be reasonable and based on the work necessary to preserve benefits, guided by principles of fairness (paras 5-6). The Court also noted that the employer's failure to limit its claim for credit contributed to the jeopardy of past benefits (para 10). The workers' compensation judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and there was no abuse of discretion in the fee award (paras 9-10).