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 bricklayer was injured during the course of his employment on February 14, 1991. After reaching maximum medical improvement on July 29, 1992, he was assessed with a 12% whole-person impairment and a 36% disability rating due to his inability to return to his heavy-duty occupation. The worker sought a partial lump-sum payment of $8,179.87 to cover debts accumulated during his disability, including significant rent arrears and utility bills (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Judge, October 18, 1993: Approved the worker's petition for a partial lump-sum payment and determined the number of weeks for continued periodic payments (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Employer and Insurer): Argued that the statutory provision under Section 52-5-12 required workers' compensation benefits to be reduced from the disability rating to the impairment rating when a partial lump-sum payment is made. They contended that this interpretation aligns with legislative policy discouraging lump-sum payments (paras 5, 7).
- Respondent (Worker): Maintained that the statute does not require such a reduction for partial lump-sum payments and that the payment was necessary to address debts accumulated during the disability (paras 4, 7).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 52-5-12(C) of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act require a reduction in benefits from the disability rating to the impairment rating when a partial lump-sum payment is made?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's order approving the partial lump-sum payment and the determination of the number of weeks for continued periodic payments (para 17).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Minzner CJ. and Hartz J. concurring):
The Court held that Section 52-5-12(C) does not require a reduction in benefits from the disability rating to the impairment rating for partial lump-sum payments. The statute distinguishes between full lump-sum payments under Subsection B and partial lump-sum payments under Subsection C, reflecting different legislative purposes. Subsection B applies to workers who have returned to work and are earning close to their pre-injury wages, while Subsection C addresses workers who need financial relief for debts accumulated during their disability (paras 8-10).
The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the policy discouraging lump-sum payments should apply equally to Subsection C. It reasoned that Subsection C serves a distinct purpose of addressing financial hardship, and the statutory language does not support applying the reduction in benefits to partial lump-sum payments (paras 12-14).
The Court also dismissed concerns about potential abuse of partial lump-sum payments, noting that such payments are subject to judicial oversight to ensure compliance with the statute and the Workers' Compensation Act's policies (para 15).
The Court concluded that the statutory language is unambiguous and does not require the reduction in benefits for partial lump-sum payments, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision (paras 16-17).