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 Worker applied for a cashier position with the Employer and, in her employment application, stated that she had no physical limitations or chronic illnesses. At the time, she had a history of episodic back problems but was unaware of her degenerative disc condition, which was only diagnosed after a workplace accident in 1991. The Employer later relied on the false representation defense, arguing that the Worker knowingly misrepresented her physical condition during the hiring process (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration: Denied the Worker’s claim for benefits, finding that the Employer successfully established the false representation defense.
Parties' Submissions
- Worker (Appellant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Judge's findings that she knowingly misrepresented her physical condition on the employment application (para 1).
- Employer (Respondent): Asserted that the Worker knowingly provided false information about her physical condition, and that this misrepresentation was relied upon in the hiring decision, justifying the denial of benefits under the false representation defense (paras 2, 7).
Legal Issues
- Was the question on the employment application regarding "physical limitations or chronic illnesses" sufficiently clear to support the Employer's false representation defense?
- Did the Worker knowingly misrepresent her physical condition on the employment application?
- Was there substantial evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Judge's findings under the test established in Lamay v. Roswell Independent School District?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision and remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the Worker’s claim (para 19).
Reasons
Per Minzner CJ (Pickard and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The Court applied the test established in Lamay v. Roswell Independent School District to evaluate the false representation defense. This test requires determining whether the question on the employment application was overly broad, whether a reasonable person in the Worker’s position would have understood the question to require disclosure of her back condition, and whether the Worker subjectively knew the question referred to her condition (paras 1, 8-9, 18).
The Court found that the question "List any physical limitations or chronic illnesses" was not overly broad as a matter of law but must be interpreted based on its plain meaning. The terms "physical limitations" and "chronic illnesses" are commonly understood to refer to conditions that impose restrictions or are frequently recurring, which did not apply to the Worker’s episodic back problems (paras 8, 14-15).
The evidence did not support a finding that the Worker knew or should have known her back condition constituted a "physical limitation" or "chronic illness" at the time of the application. She was unaware of her degenerative disc condition, had no activity restrictions, and had not experienced back problems for several years before applying for the job (paras 12-13, 15).
The Employer failed to provide evidence that the Worker subjectively understood the question to require disclosure of her back condition. The Court emphasized that employers bear the responsibility of drafting clear and specific questions if they seek detailed medical information (paras 16-18).
The denial of benefits based on the false representation defense was therefore erroneous, and the case was remanded for consideration of the Worker’s claim on its merits (para 19).