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 claimant, a former armaments engineer, joined the Pecos Benedictine Monastery in 1991 to pursue a life of religious devotion. While serving as a novice in the monastery, she performed tasks in the reservations and business office as part of her spiritual discipline. In January 1993, she sustained a back injury after slipping on a wet floor. The monastery provided her with room, board, and a small monthly allowance but did not consider her an employee or pay her wages (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The workers' compensation judge dismissed the claimant's complaint for benefits, finding that she was not a "worker" under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Claimant): Argued that she was a "worker" under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act because she performed services for the monastery under its control and received room, board, and a monthly allowance, which she claimed constituted compensation (paras 8, 16).
- Appellees (Monastery and Insurer): Contended that the claimant was not a "worker" as defined by the Act, asserting that her relationship with the monastery was based on religious devotion rather than a contract of employment or apprenticeship (paras 7, 14-16).
Legal Issues
- Was the claimant a "worker" under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act at the time of her injury? (para 1)
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claimant's complaint, holding that she was not a "worker" under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act (para 17).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Black and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The court found that the claimant's relationship with the monastery was one of religious devotion rather than employment. Although the monastery controlled her work, there was no mutual agreement or contract of hire. The claimant's motivations were spiritual, and the room, board, and allowance she received were not intended as wages but as support for her spiritual development. The court distinguished this case from others where religious workers were found to be employees, noting that the claimant did not receive monetary compensation or wages in exchange for her services. The waiver of remuneration signed by the claimant further supported the conclusion that no employment relationship existed (paras 14-16).