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 case arose from a petition filed by the employer, Apex Lines, Inc., and its insurer, Fremont Indemnity Company, to reduce the workers' compensation benefits of the worker, who had been receiving temporary total disability benefits for several years following a workplace injury. The worker had since obtained a light-duty job delivering pharmaceuticals, which he performed without significant difficulty, and the employer sought to challenge the necessity of continued benefits and vocational rehabilitation (paras 1, 4).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Department of Labor, Workers' Compensation Division: The Workers' Compensation Judge issued a compensation order addressing the worker's benefits, including the award of vocational rehabilitation and the refusal to require repayment of overpaid benefits (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer: Argued that the award of vocational rehabilitation benefits was unwarranted as the worker had already secured suitable employment without such rehabilitation. Additionally, the employer contended that the worker should be required to repay the amounts voluntarily overpaid beyond the period of temporary total disability (paras 2-3, 7-8).
- Worker: Relied on medical testimony suggesting the need for retraining to obtain light-duty employment and opposed the employer's request for repayment of overpaid benefits, arguing that such repayment would cause undue hardship (paras 5, 12-14).
Legal Issues
- Was the award of vocational rehabilitation benefits to the worker justified?
- Did the Workers' Compensation Judge abuse discretion in refusing to require the worker to repay overpaid benefits?
Disposition
- The award of vocational rehabilitation benefits was reversed (para 5).
- The refusal to require repayment of overpaid benefits was affirmed (para 14).
- The case was remanded for adjustments to the compensation order, including the termination date of temporary disability and the overpayment offset amount (para 15).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Alarid C.J. and Bivins J. concurring):
Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits: The court found insufficient evidence to support the necessity of vocational rehabilitation. The worker had already obtained suitable employment based on his training and experience, and the medical testimony relied upon was outdated and irrelevant to the worker's current circumstances. The court concluded that vocational rehabilitation was unnecessary to restore the worker to suitable employment (paras 3-5).
Repayment of Overpaid Benefits: The court upheld the Workers' Compensation Judge's discretionary decision not to require repayment of overpaid benefits. It emphasized the balancing test established in prior case law, considering factors such as the worker's ability to repay, the employer's role in continuing payments, and the potential hardship to the worker. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the overpayment amount was relatively small and that the worker's benefits had already been offset to eliminate future compensation (paras 9-14).
Remand: The court directed the Workers' Compensation Judge to adjust the compensation order to reflect the revised termination date for temporary disability benefits, eliminate the vocational rehabilitation award, and reconsider attorney fees (para 15).