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

A pizza delivery worker suffered severe injuries to her left hand in a rollover accident while working for her employer, a Domino's Pizza franchise. The worker was assessed with a 48% impairment to her left hand and a 43% impairment to her left upper extremity. She claimed temporary total disability until reaching maximum medical improvement on December 26, 1991, and sought vocational rehabilitation benefits and attorney fees. The employer contested the extent of her disability, the classification of her injury, and her entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benefits (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: The workers' compensation judge awarded the worker temporary total disability benefits, vocational rehabilitation benefits, and attorney fees capped at $12,500. The judge denied the worker's claim for bad faith attorney fees and the employer's claim for a credit for overpayment of benefits (paras 1, 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker (Appellant/Cross-Appellee): Argued that the $12,500 attorney fee cap was unconstitutional, the denial of bad faith attorney fees was erroneous, and she should not be required to pay 25% of her attorney fees. She also supported the classification of her injury as to her left arm and the award of vocational rehabilitation benefits (paras 1, 8-11, 16-20).
• Employer (Appellee/Cross-Appellant): Contended that the worker's injury should be classified as to her left hand, not her arm, and that the vocational rehabilitation benefits were improperly awarded. The employer also sought a credit for overpayment of benefits and challenged the award of the worker's vocational rehabilitation expert witness fee (paras 1, 12-14, 16-22).

Legal Issues

• Is the $12,500 attorney fee cap under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(G), constitutional?
• Did the workers' compensation judge err in denying the worker's claim for bad faith attorney fees?
• Should the worker be required to pay 25% of her attorney fees under Section 52-1-54(H)?
• Did the judge err in classifying the worker's injury as to her left arm rather than her left hand?
• Was the award of vocational rehabilitation benefits to the worker appropriate?
• Did the judge err in awarding the worker's vocational rehabilitation expert witness fee?
• Should the employer receive a credit for overpayment of benefits?

Disposition

• The court affirmed the denial of bad faith attorney fees to the worker.
• The court reversed the classification of the worker's injury as to her left arm and held it should be classified as to her left hand.
• The court reversed the award of vocational rehabilitation benefits and the vocational rehabilitation expert witness fee.
• The court affirmed the denial of the employer's request for a credit for overpayment of benefits.
• The court remanded the case for recalculation of attorney fees in light of the revised benefits (paras 24-25).

Reasons

Per Minzner CJ (Apodaca and Pickard JJ. concurring):

• Attorney Fee Cap: The court declined to address the constitutionality of the $12,500 attorney fee cap because the recalculation of benefits on remand might render the issue moot. The court noted that constitutional challenges to the cap would only be addressed when ripe (paras 8, 24).
• Bad Faith Attorney Fees: The court upheld the denial of bad faith attorney fees, finding that the judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The judge reasonably concluded that the employer's actions, including contesting the worker's full-time status, did not amount to bad faith as defined under Section 52-1-54(G) (paras 9-10).
• 25% Attorney Fee Contribution: The court did not address the worker's argument regarding the 25% fee contribution because it was contingent on a ruling in her favor on the bad faith or constitutional issues (para 11).
• Classification of Injury: The court held that the evidence did not support the classification of the worker's injury as to her left arm. The medical testimony indicated that the arm was functional but rendered less effective due to the hand injury. The court emphasized that the statutory scheme for scheduled injuries must not be rendered meaningless (paras 16-18).
• Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits: The court found that the worker failed to demonstrate that she could not have been rehabilitated to a job related to her former employment, as required under Section 52-1-50(B). Thus, the award of college expenses as vocational rehabilitation benefits was improper (paras 19-20).
• Expert Witness Fee: The court reversed the award of the vocational rehabilitation expert witness fee, holding that Section 52-5-7(F) requires a subpoena for such fees to be awarded. The court interpreted the statutory language as treating expert and non-expert witnesses alike in this regard (paras 21-23).
• Credit for Overpayment: The court affirmed the denial of the employer's request for a credit for overpayment of benefits, finding substantial evidence supported the judge's determination of temporary total disability. The worker's testimony and her expert's opinion were sufficient to uphold the finding, despite the employer's contrary evidence (paras 12-15).