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 sustained an accidental injury on September 17, 1984, while employed by the defendant. The case was tried under the "old" Workmen's Compensation Act, and the worker sought benefits, claiming her disability was causally related to the injury. The employer disputed this claim and sought to recover costs incurred during the trial (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the worker's claim with prejudice, finding that her disability was not causally related to the injury. The court also awarded costs to the employer (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker (Appellant): Argued that the district court erred in awarding costs to the employer, as the statutory framework of the Workmen's Compensation Act does not authorize such an award against an unsuccessful worker (paras 1, 19).
- Employer (Appellee): Contended that the award of costs was proper under Section 52-1-35(B) of the Act and relied on prior case law, including Goolsby v. Pucci Distributing Co. and Chadwick v. Public Serv. Co. of N.M., to support the imposition of expert witness fees against the worker (paras 1, 4, 18).
Legal Issues
- Whether Section 52-1-35(B) of the Workmen's Compensation Act authorizes the assessment of expert witness fees against an unsuccessful worker (para 7).
- Whether the district court erred in awarding costs to the employer (para 1).
- Whether the worker is entitled to attorney fees on appeal despite not recovering compensation or related benefits (para 21).
Disposition
- The award of costs to the employer was reversed (para 20).
- The judgment was affirmed in all other respects (para 20).
- The worker's request for attorney fees on appeal was denied (para 21).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Alarid CJ. and Apodaca J. concurring):
Statutory Interpretation: The court analyzed Section 52-1-35(B) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and concluded that it does not clearly authorize the assessment of expert witness fees against an unsuccessful worker. The court emphasized that costs are a statutory creation and cannot be imposed without clear legislative authorization (paras 7-9).
Legislative Intent: The court examined the Act as a whole and determined that its purpose is to provide injured workers with a simple, expeditious, and cost-free means of obtaining benefits. Allowing costs to be assessed against workers would undermine this purpose and deter legitimate claims (paras 10-12, 19).
Case Law Analysis: The court rejected the employer's reliance on Goolsby and Chadwick, finding that the relevant language in Goolsby was dicta and that Chadwick did not adequately consider the statutory scheme. To the extent these cases supported the employer's position, they were overruled (paras 4-5, 18, 20).
Attorney Fees: The court denied the worker's request for attorney fees on appeal, holding that such fees are only available when a worker recovers compensation or related benefits. The worker's argument that avoiding costs constituted an economic benefit was unsupported by authority (para 21).