This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An employee of Kennecott Copper Corporation sustained multiple work-related injuries to his left knee over several years, starting in 1971. Despite surgeries and treatments, the employee's condition deteriorated, leading to permanent impairment. In May 1983, the employee suffered another injury to the same knee, which ultimately rendered him unable to work. The employer began paying temporary total disability benefits in August 1983. In March 1988, the employer filed a claim against the New Mexico Subsequent Injury Fund for reimbursement of benefits paid to the employee (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Division: The workers' compensation judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Subsequent Injury Fund, concluding that the employer's claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Employer): Argued that there were material factual disputes regarding when it knew or should have known it had a claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund. Additionally, the employer contended that the four-year statute of limitations established in Hernandez v. Levi Strauss, Inc. should not apply retrospectively to its claim (paras 1, 4, 6, 11).
- Respondents (Subsequent Injury Fund and Superintendent of Insurance): Asserted that the employer knew or should have known of its claim in 1983, making the 1988 filing untimely under the four-year statute of limitations. They also argued that the Hernandez decision should apply retrospectively (paras 1, 3, 11).
Legal Issues
- Did the employer know or should it have known in 1983 that it had a claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund, thereby making its 1988 filing untimely under the four-year statute of limitations?
- Should the four-year statute of limitations established in Hernandez v. Levi Strauss, Inc. apply retrospectively to the employer's claim?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the workers' compensation judge's decision, holding that the employer's claim was untimely and that the four-year statute of limitations applied retrospectively (paras 1, 19-20).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Donnelly J. concurring):
The court found that the employer knew or should have known it had a claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund in 1983 when it began paying total disability benefits to the employee. The employer had actual knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment and the subsequent injury in May 1983. Letters from the employee's treating physician in 1983 and 1984 linked the May 1983 injury to the employee's disability, providing sufficient notice to the employer (paras 5, 7-9).
The court rejected the employer's argument that conflicting medical opinions raised material factual disputes. It held that the orthopedic surgeon's later deposition did not affect what the employer knew or should have known in 1983. The court also dismissed affidavits and other evidence presented by the employer as immaterial to the timeliness issue (paras 6, 10).
On the issue of retrospective application, the court applied the three-factor test from Whenry v. Whenry. It concluded that the four-year statute of limitations in Hernandez did not establish a new principle of law, as it was foreshadowed by prior decisions and general limitations statutes. The court also found no inequity in applying the rule retrospectively, as the employer could not reasonably assume there was no statute of limitations. Finally, the court determined that retrospective application furthered the purpose of the rule by barring stale claims (paras 11-18).
Special Concurrence by Bivins C.J.:
Chief Judge Bivins concurred with the majority's reasoning and result on the first issue. However, he concurred only in the result on the second issue regarding the retrospective application of the statute of limitations (para 21).