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, an employee of First National Bank in Albuquerque, was injured on June 23, 1988, when she tripped over a protruding portion of the wood floor in the Galeria level of the First Plaza building while walking from her parking space in the Civic Center parking facility to her workplace. The parking facility was owned by the City of Albuquerque, and the claimant's parking space was not assigned or controlled by her employer (paras 2-3, 8).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The workers' compensation judge denied the claimant's request for benefits, finding that her injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment under the "going-and-coming rule" (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Claimant): Argued that her injury fell within an exception to the "going-and-coming rule" because it occurred on a necessary route between two portions of her employer's premises, relying on precedents from Dupper v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. and Lovato v. Maxim's Beauty Salon, Inc. (paras 3, 7, 12).
- Respondents (Employer and Insurer): Contended that the parking lot and Galeria were not part of the employer's premises, as the parking space was not assigned or controlled by the employer. They also argued that the claimant waived certain issues on appeal and that the Dupper exception was inapplicable under the "New Act" (paras 9, 12).
Legal Issues
- Does the claimant's injury fall within the exception to the "going-and-coming rule" under the Workers' Compensation Act?
- Can the parking lot and Galeria be considered part of the employer's premises for the purposes of workers' compensation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the workers' compensation judge, denying the claimant's request for benefits (para 13).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Herrera J., Hartz J. concurring):
The court held that the claimant's injury did not fall within the exception to the "going-and-coming rule" because the parking lot was not owned, controlled, or assigned by the employer. The employer's limited option to designate parking spaces did not extend to the claimant's specific parking arrangement, which was a private sublease between the claimant and the building manager. The court distinguished the facts of this case from Dupper and Lovato, emphasizing that mere employee use of a parking lot does not make it part of the employer's premises (paras 8-11).
The court also noted that the claimant waived the argument that the Galeria was part of the employer's premises by failing to brief the issue on appeal (para 12).
Dissenting Opinion (Chavez J.):
The dissent argued that the majority's reasoning improperly elevated the importance of employer control over the parking lot, leading to unjust results. The dissent emphasized that the claimant's injury occurred on a customary ingress route used by employees and should be compensable under the principles established in Dupper and Lovato. The dissent cited similar cases from other jurisdictions where injuries sustained on routes between parking areas and workplaces were deemed compensable, even when the parking areas were not owned or controlled by the employer (paras 14-19).