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 correctional officer was injured while escorting a beaten inmate during a planned "welcoming party" for transferred inmates at a detention center. The officer was struck by a fellow officer who was attempting to hit the inmate. Following the incident, the officer testified truthfully in an internal investigation about the beatings, despite pressure from superiors to alter his testimony. He was subsequently terminated without good cause and later found new employment. The case concerns the classification of the physical capacity required for his job prior to the injury (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Moya v. City of Albuquerque, 2007-NMCA-057: The Court of Appeals held that the employer was entitled to an offset only for wages and benefits it provided, not for wages paid by a subsequent employer. It also affirmed that the worker's job required "medium" physical capacity (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker: Argued that his job as a correctional officer required "heavy" physical capacity, relying on a written job description that included lifting over fifty pounds occasionally and carrying injured persons in emergencies (paras 4-7).
- Employer: Contended that the job required only "medium" physical capacity, as the majority of lifting involved weights under thirty-five pounds, with heavier lifting occurring rarely (paras 7-9).
Legal Issues
- Whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the worker's job as a correctional officer required only "medium" physical capacity (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Judge for a recalculation of the worker's physical capacity modification, finding that the job required "heavy" physical capacity (paras 1, 11-12).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
The Court reviewed the whole record and determined that the evidence did not support the finding that the worker's job required only "medium" physical capacity. The job description indicated that the worker could be required to lift over fifty pounds occasionally, particularly in emergencies, which falls under the statutory definition of "heavy" physical capacity. The Court emphasized that the statutory classification for "medium" work does not contemplate lifting over fifty pounds, even rarely. Therefore, the evidence supported a classification of "heavy" physical capacity, necessitating a recalculation of the worker's physical capacity modification (paras 6-10).