AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 suffered two separate back injuries while employed by different employers. The first injury occurred in 1997 while working for Payday Professional, and the second injury occurred in 1999 while working for CNA Unisource. The second injury aggravated the first, leading to a need for surgery. Medical experts provided differing opinions on the extent to which each injury contributed to the worker's condition (paras 1, 3-4).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration, April 19, 2006: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) apportioned non-surgical medical expenses equally between the two employers but assigned full liability for surgical expenses to CNA. The WCJ also denied the worker's motion for full attorney fees, ruling that the worker's offer of judgment had no legal effect (paras 1, 7-8).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (CNA Unisource): Argued that the WCJ erred in apportioning liability for surgical and non-surgical medical expenses separately, claiming that all treatment should be apportioned between the two employers. CNA also contended that the WCJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that Payday should not be immune from liability for surgical expenses (paras 11-20).
• Cross-Appellant (Worker): Argued that the WCJ erred in denying her motion for full attorney fees under the fee-shifting provision of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-54(F)(4), asserting that her offer of judgment was valid and should have triggered the provision (paras 21-26).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in apportioning non-surgical medical expenses equally between the two employers while assigning full liability for surgical expenses to CNA.
• Whether the WCJ erred in denying the worker's motion for full attorney fees on the basis that her offer of judgment had no legal effect.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's apportionment of medical expenses and denial of the worker's motion for full attorney fees (paras 2, 27).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Sutin CJ. and Pickard J. concurring):

• Apportionment of Medical Expenses: The WCJ's decision to apportion non-surgical medical expenses equally between the two employers and assign full liability for surgical expenses to CNA was supported by substantial evidence. The testimony of Dr. Gelinas, though equivocal, provided a reasonable basis for the WCJ's conclusion that the second injury was the primary cause of the need for surgery. The apportionment complied with NMSA 1978, § 52-1-47(D), as it avoided double recovery and appropriately allocated liability based on causation (paras 13-20).

• Attorney Fees: The WCJ correctly determined that the worker's offer of judgment was invalid because it failed to address the critical issue of apportionment between the employers. Without resolving this key issue, the offer could not dispose of the merits of the case, rendering it legally ineffective under NMSA 1978, § 52-1-54(F)(4). The Court distinguished this case from prior decisions where unresolved issues were less central to the litigation (paras 23-26).