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

The Worker-Appellant injured his left elbow while working for the Employer-Appellee on September 2, 1991, resulting in medial epicondylitis, commonly known as tennis elbow. The Worker claimed partial loss of use of his left elbow and sought scheduled injury benefits under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-43 (Repl. Pamp. 1991) (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Employer, finding that the Worker failed to present evidence of impairment or medical restriction as required under Section 52-1-24(A) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that Section 52-1-43 provides for compensation for loss of use of a specific body member without requiring proof of impairment as defined in Section 52-1-24(A). The Worker presented evidence of lifting restrictions and pain that limited his ability to perform regular work (paras 3-4, 12).
• Employer-Appellee: Contended that recovery under Section 52-1-43 requires proof of impairment as defined in Section 52-1-24(A) and argued that the Worker failed to provide such evidence. The Employer also asserted that the lack of reference to the AMA guides in Section 52-1-43 was a legislative oversight (paras 2, 4, 10).

Legal Issues

• Does Section 52-1-43 require proof of impairment as defined in Section 52-1-24(A) for a worker to recover benefits for partial loss of use of a specific body member?
• Did the Worker raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding his partial loss of use of his left elbow?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted in favor of the Employer (para 13).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Minzner CJ. and Flores J. concurring):

• The Court held that proof of impairment as defined in Section 52-1-24(A) is not required under Section 52-1-43 for recovery of benefits for partial loss of use of a specific body member. The Court reasoned that the legislative history and statutory language of Section 52-1-43 do not mandate the use of the AMA guides for determining loss of use (paras 6-9).
• The Court rejected the Employer's argument that the absence of reference to the AMA guides in Section 52-1-43 was a legislative oversight, noting that the legislature intentionally excluded such references in the scheduled injury section (paras 8-10).
• The Court found that the Worker presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding his partial loss of use. Specifically, medical testimony and the Worker's own statements about pain and lifting restrictions contradicted the Employer's evidence, creating a substantial conflict in the facts (paras 11-12).