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 case involves a workers' compensation claim where the claimant, acting as the personal representative of her deceased husband's estate, sought benefits for his work-related injuries. The employer, Homestake Mining Company, settled with the claimant before trial, and later with the Subsequent Injury Fund (the Fund). The dispute centers on the apportionment of liability between the employer and the Fund, as well as issues related to post-judgment interest, attorney fees, and potential double recovery by the claimant (paras 2, 7, and 18).
Procedural History
- Ulibarri v. Homestake Mining Co., Ct. App. 10,389 (memorandum opinion filed October 18, 1988): The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for apportionment of liability between the employer and the Fund and for redetermination of attorney fees (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (New Mexico Superintendent of Insurance and the Subsequent Injury Fund): Argued that post-judgment interest should accrue from the second judgment, not the first; that the trial court failed to properly follow the appellate court's mandate on attorney fees; that the attorney fees awarded were excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion; that the claimant received an impermissible double recovery; and that the Fund should not be charged with the claimant's costs and attorney fees incurred on remand (paras 1, 4, 10, 12, 18, and 26).
- Appellee (Claimant): Contended that the Fund's liability was properly apportioned, that the attorney fees were reasonable and justified, and that the settlement with the employer did not result in a double recovery. The claimant also sought attorney fees for defending the appeal (paras 3, 10, 18, and 30).
Legal Issues
- Whether post-judgment interest should accrue from the date of the original judgment or the date of the second judgment (para 4).
- Whether the trial court properly followed the appellate court's mandate to redetermine attorney fees (para 10).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the claimant (para 12).
- Whether the claimant received an impermissible double recovery (para 18).
- Whether the Fund should be charged with the claimant's costs and attorney fees incurred on remand (para 26).
Disposition
- The trial court's award of post-judgment interest from the date of the first judgment was reversed, and interest was ordered to accrue from the date of the second judgment (para 31).
- The trial court's award of $250 in expert witness fees and $500 in attorney fees on remand was reversed (para 31).
- The trial court's decisions on attorney fees, double recovery, and apportionment of liability were affirmed (para 31).
- The claimant was awarded $750 in attorney fees for prevailing on one issue in the appeal (para 31).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Post-Judgment Interest: The court held that post-judgment interest should accrue from the second judgment because the remand required the trial court to take additional evidence and make new findings, rather than merely modifying the original judgment. This distinguished the case from precedents where interest accrued from the original judgment (paras 6-9).
Attorney Fees Mandate: The court found that the trial court complied with the appellate court's mandate by redetermining attorney fees in light of the apportionment of liability. The mandate did not require a strict mathematical apportionment of fees (paras 10-11).
Abuse of Discretion in Attorney Fees: The court upheld the trial court's award of $6,900 in attorney fees, finding it reasonable based on the complexity of the case, the time expended, and the skill of the attorney. The percentage of fees relative to the judgment was not determinative, and the trial court's findings were supported by evidence (paras 12-17).
Double Recovery: The court rejected the Fund's argument that the claimant received a double recovery. It emphasized the importance of honoring settlements and found no statutory or equitable basis to reduce the Fund's liability due to the claimant's settlement with the employer (paras 18-24).
Costs and Attorney Fees on Remand: The court held that the claimant bore the burden of proof on apportionment and should not have been awarded costs and attorney fees incurred on remand. The Fund's success in the first appeal justified this outcome (paras 26-29).
Attorney Fees on Appeal: The court awarded the claimant $750 in attorney fees for prevailing on the double recovery issue but denied fees for defending the trial court's attorney fee award (para 30).