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 suffered two successive back injuries: one in 1997 while employed by Payday Professional/Bio-Cal Comp. and another in 1999 while working for CNA Unisource/Continental Casualty Company. Following the second injury, an orthopedic surgeon recommended back surgery. The Worker filed workers’ compensation claims against both employers, which were later consolidated. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) apportioned liability for the Worker’s medical expenses between the two employers, directing CNA to cover the cost of the surgery (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Judge: Apportioned liability for the Worker’s medical expenses between Payday and CNA, ordering CNA to pay for the Worker’s back surgery. Denied the Worker’s motion for injunctive relief to compel immediate payment for the surgery, citing lack of authority to issue injunctions (paras 1, 4).
- Leonard v. Payday Prof’l, 2007-NMCA-128, 142 N.M. 605, 168 P.3d 177: The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s apportionment of medical benefits and ruling on attorney fees (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the WCJ should have the authority to compel CNA to provide immediate medical treatment, as the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) lacks a mechanism to ensure treatment during disputes. Asserted that CNA could have provided the surgery while reserving its right to reimbursement and noted that district courts previously had injunctive powers in workers’ compensation cases (para 6).
- Respondent (CNA): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the WCJ have the authority to issue an injunction compelling CNA to pay for the Worker’s surgery immediately?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s denial of the Worker’s motion for injunctive relief (para 15).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Sutin C.J. and Pickard J. concurring):
The Court held that the WCJ lacked the authority to issue an injunction compelling CNA to pay for the Worker’s surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) does not expressly grant WCJs the power to issue injunctions, and the Workers’ Compensation Administration Act (WCAA) limits WCJs’ authority to specific powers, such as preserving order during hearings and issuing subpoenas (paras 11-12).
The Court also noted that the WCA explicitly provides for injunctive relief in limited circumstances, requiring the WCA director to seek such relief from a district court. This indicates that the legislature did not intend to grant WCJs equitable powers, including the authority to issue injunctions (para 13). Injunctions are considered drastic remedies requiring a court’s equitable powers, which WCJs do not possess (para 14).
The Court further addressed mootness, acknowledging that the Worker’s appeal was technically moot because the liability issue had already been resolved in Leonard I. However, the Court decided to address the merits of the appeal because the issue of injunctive relief was of substantial public interest and capable of repetition while evading review (paras 9-10).