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 a tile manufacturing and sales corporation, sustained an accidental injury on May 16, 1988. The worker sought workers' compensation benefits, but the employer argued it was not subject to the Workers' Compensation Act as it did not employ the requisite minimum of three workers (paras 1-2, 5, and 9).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Department of Labor Workers' Compensation Division: The worker's claim for compensation was dismissed with prejudice on the basis that the employer did not meet the statutory threshold of three employees required for liability under the Workers' Compensation Act (paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the employer met the statutory threshold of three employees, contending that the employer's directors and officers, as well as two other workers employed shortly before the injury, should be counted as employees under the Act (paras 5, 8-9).
- Respondent (Employer): Asserted that it never employed three or more workers at any given time, excluding the directors and officers who were not compensated and did not qualify as employees under the Act (paras 5-6, 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the employer met the statutory threshold of three or more employees to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act (para 3).
- When the count of employees should be determined for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act (para 10).
Disposition
- The dismissal of the worker's claim was affirmed (para 14).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Apodaca and Chavez JJ. concurring):
The court upheld the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings that the employer did not meet the statutory threshold of three employees. The directors and officers of the corporation were excluded as employees because they were not compensated and did not qualify as workers under the Act. Payments made to them were determined to be loan repayments, not wages (paras 5-6).
The court also clarified that the determination of the number of employees should not be based solely on the date of the injury but on whether the employer regularly employed three or more workers. This interpretation prevents employers from oscillating between coverage and exemption under the Act. However, even under this broader interpretation, the employer never employed three or more workers at any given time, excluding the directors and officers (paras 10-13).
The court concluded that the employer was not subject to the Workers' Compensation Act and affirmed the dismissal of the worker's claim (para 14).