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 petitioner, a school bus owner/driver, was involved in an accident in August 1983 while driving a school bus, resulting in total disability as determined by the Worker’s Compensation Board and the Social Security Administration. Despite her disability, she retained her contractual rights to the bus operation and hired an employee to drive the bus. She applied for disability benefits from the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board (ERB) in March 1985, 18 months after the accident, but her application was delayed and denied due to ERB Regulation VI(A), which required her to terminate her bus contract before being eligible for benefits (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Found ERB Regulation VI unconstitutional as applied, awarded disability benefits from January 1985, and granted attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Appellant and Cross-Appellee): Argued that ERB Regulation VI was unconstitutional as it violated equal protection, due process, and contract clauses. Alternatively, claimed the regulation exceeded ERB’s statutory authority. Sought retroactive disability benefits to the date of the accident and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 (paras 6, 14).
- Respondents (Appellees and Cross-Appellants): Contended that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, making mandamus inappropriate. Defended the constitutionality of Regulation VI and argued against the award of attorney’s fees and retroactive benefits (paras 7, 14).
Legal Issues
- Did the ERB exceed its statutory authority by requiring the petitioner to terminate her bus contract before considering her application for disability benefits?
- Was Regulation VI(A) unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner?
- When should the petitioner’s disability benefits commence?
- Was the petitioner entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988?
Disposition
- The ERB exceeded its statutory authority by requiring termination of the bus contract before considering the application for disability benefits.
- Regulation VI(A) was invalid as it went beyond the ERB’s statutory authority.
- Disability benefits were to commence on April 1, 1985, one month after the petitioner’s initial application.
- The petitioner was not entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
- Prejudgment interest was not awardable against the state agency (paras 13-15).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Montgomery and Wilson JJ. concurring):
The ERB overstepped its statutory authority by creating Regulation VI(A), which imposed an unreasonable and irrelevant requirement for applicants to divest their bus contracts before their applications could be considered. The Educational Retirement Act did not authorize such a condition, and the regulation was inconsistent with the legislative intent (paras 8-11).
The court found that Regulation VI(C), which delayed benefits until the application was filed, was within the ERB’s statutory authority. Benefits were to commence on April 1, 1985, one month after the petitioner’s initial application, as the ERB had constructive notice of her disability at that time. Retroactive benefits to the date of the accident were not warranted because the petitioner delayed her application by 18 months (paras 12-13).
The petitioner’s claim for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 was denied because the case did not involve the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes. The court also held that prejudgment interest could not be awarded against a state agency without statutory authorization (para 14).
The court affirmed the invalidation of Regulation VI(A) and the award of benefits from April 1, 1985, but reversed the award of attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest, remanding the case for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion (para 15).