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 involves a worker who sustained injuries while employed as a logger. The worker claimed partial disability and other benefits, asserting he was an employee of two entities, Payroll Express, Inc. and Leonard Jensen Logging. The employers disputed the worker's employment status, arguing he was an independent contractor, and raised issues regarding wage computation, disability benefits, medical care, insurance coverage, vocational rehabilitation, and attorney fees (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge awarded the worker partial disability benefits and other compensation but did not resolve the attorney fee issue before being replaced by another judge (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Payroll Express, Inc. and Leonard Jensen Logging): Argued that the worker was an independent contractor, not an employee, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the employment status finding. They also disputed the calculation of average weekly wages, the disability award, the adequacy of medical care provided, the existence of insurance coverage, the need for vocational rehabilitation, and the attorney fee award (paras 3-7, 23-28, 29-34, 35-41, 42-45).
- Respondent (Worker): Asserted he was an employee of both entities and supported the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge. He argued that the employers failed to provide adequate medical care and vocational rehabilitation and that the attorney fee award was proper (paras 3-7, 23-28, 29-34, 35-41, 42-45).
Legal Issues
- Was the worker an employee or an independent contractor?
- Was the calculation of the worker's average weekly wage correct?
- Was the worker entitled to temporary disability benefits for the period between the accident and the commencement of partial disability benefits?
- Did the employers provide adequate medical care as required by law?
- Was the worker entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits?
- Was the attorney fee award proper?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish insurance coverage for the worker?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
- The worker's employment status as an employee was upheld.
- The calculation of average weekly wages was remanded for further determination.
- The issue of temporary disability benefits was remanded for additional findings.
- The adequacy of medical care was remanded for further determination.
- The vocational rehabilitation award was remanded for procedural and substantive review.
- The attorney fee award was affirmed.
- The finding of insurance coverage was affirmed (paras 47-49).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Apodaca and Black JJ. concurring):
Employment Status: The Court upheld the finding that the worker was an employee, as the employers failed to comply with procedural requirements to challenge the sufficiency of evidence. The evidence supported the conclusion that the worker was under the control of the employers (paras 3-6).
Average Weekly Wage: The Court found that the Workers' Compensation Judge failed to properly calculate the worker's average weekly wage by not deducting non-wage items and considering seasonal employment. The case was remanded for recalculation using statutory guidelines (paras 7-21).
Temporary Disability Benefits: The Court remanded the issue of temporary disability benefits for the period between the accident and the commencement of partial disability benefits, as the Workers' Compensation Judge failed to make findings for this period (paras 23-26).
Adequacy of Medical Care: The Court remanded the issue to determine whether the employers provided or offered adequate medical care, as required by law. The findings were insufficient to support the conclusion that the employers failed in their obligations (paras 29-34).
Vocational Rehabilitation: The Court remanded the issue to determine whether the worker's request for vocational rehabilitation was timely and whether such benefits were necessary to restore the worker to suitable employment (paras 37-41).
Attorney Fees: The Court affirmed the attorney fee award, finding that the employers waived their right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence by failing to request findings of fact and conclusions of law before the award was issued (paras 42-45).
Insurance Coverage: The Court upheld the finding that the employers were insured, as the evidence supported the conclusion that Payroll Express and Jensen were treated as one entity for insurance purposes (paras 35-36).