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, employed by the employer from 1970 to 1986, suffered a knee injury in 1977 while playing baseball, which later disabled him at work. He underwent surgery to remove cartilage and recuperated for nine months before returning to work without difficulty. In 1986, the worker reinjured the same knee while climbing onto a bulldozer, resulting in permanent disability. The employer settled the worker's compensation claim and sought reimbursement from the New Mexico Subsequent Injury Fund (Fund) under the Subsequent Injury Act (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Department of Labor Workers' Compensation Division: The workers' compensation judge determined that the Fund was liable for 50% of the payments made by the employer to the worker.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Fund): Argued that the employer lacked sufficient knowledge of the worker's preexisting impairment to recover under the Subsequent Injury Act. The Fund also contended that the judge's findings on the worker's total disability, the material and substantial aggravation of the injury, and the 50% apportionment of liability were unsupported by substantial evidence (paras 1, 4-5, 13-14, 20).
- Appellee (Employer): Asserted that it had actual knowledge of the worker's preexisting impairment based on the 1977 injury and surgery. The employer also argued that the worker's disability was materially and substantially greater due to the combination of injuries and that the apportionment of liability was supported by medical testimony (paras 6-8, 13, 20).
Legal Issues
- Did the employer have sufficient knowledge of the worker's preexisting impairment to recover under the Subsequent Injury Act?
- Was there substantial evidence to support the finding that the worker's disability was materially and substantially greater due to the combination of impairments?
- Was the finding of total disability supported by substantial evidence?
- Was the 50% apportionment of liability between the employer and the Fund justified?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the workers' compensation judge's decision, holding the Fund liable for 50% of the payments made by the employer to the worker (para 22).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Alarid CJ. and Bivins J. concurring):
Employer's Knowledge of Preexisting Impairment: The court held that the employer had actual knowledge of the worker's preexisting impairment based on the 1977 knee injury, surgery, and extended recuperation period. The nature of the injury and medical testimony supported the inference of permanent impairment, even without visible symptoms or difficulty in performing tasks after the worker's return to work (paras 6-12).
Material and Substantial Aggravation: The court found substantial evidence that the worker's disability was materially and substantially greater due to the combination of impairments. Medical experts testified that the second injury aggravated the preexisting condition, and the worker's overall disability was greater than it would have been from the second injury alone (paras 13-14).
Total Disability: The court upheld the finding of total disability, noting that the worker could not return to his former job or earn a comparable wage. Evidence included medical restrictions, the lack of light-duty positions, and the employer's own assessment that the worker was a poor candidate for reemployment (paras 15-19).
Apportionment of Liability: The court concluded that the 50% apportionment of liability was supported by medical testimony, which indicated that the worker's impairment was attributable equally to the first and second injuries. The court rejected the Fund's argument that apportionment should strictly follow AMA guidelines (paras 20-21).