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

The Worker suffered three work-related accidents between February 2007 and February 2008, resulting in multiple injuries. These injuries caused a decline in the Worker’s health and a marked reduction in overtime wages. The Worker’s activities were not medically restricted until March 2008, but payroll records indicated a significant decrease in overtime hours after the first accident.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Issued a compensation order calculating the Worker’s average weekly wage under Subsection (C) of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-20 (1990), rather than Subsection (B), due to the unfairness of the latter method given the Worker’s circumstances.
• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Denied the Employer’s motion for reconsideration of the compensation order.

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Insurer (Appellants): Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in calculating the Worker’s average weekly wage under Subsection (C) instead of Subsection (B). Claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Worker’s wages declined due to her injuries and that no medical evidence or expert testimony established a connection between the injuries and the wage reduction.
• Worker (Appellee): Asserted that the WCJ’s calculation under Subsection (C) was appropriate because the Worker’s injuries caused a decline in her overtime hours and wages. Cited payroll records and testimony as evidence of the decline in wages following the accidents.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in calculating the Worker’s average weekly wage under Subsection (C) of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-20 (1990), instead of Subsection (B).
• Whether sufficient evidence supported the WCJ’s determination that the Worker’s injuries caused a decline in her wages.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation order and the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Bustamante and Vigil JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the WCJ’s decision to calculate the Worker’s average weekly wage under Subsection (C) was supported by substantial evidence. Subsection (C) allows for discretion in determining the average weekly wage when the statutory formula under Subsection (B) would not fairly reflect the Worker’s earnings due to the nature of the employment or other circumstances, such as illness or injury.

The WCJ reasonably relied on payroll records and the Worker’s testimony, which demonstrated a marked decline in overtime wages after the first accident. The Court rejected the Employer’s argument that medical evidence or expert testimony was required to establish the connection between the injuries and the wage decline, noting that Subsection (C) does not demand such evidence.

The Court emphasized that the WCJ, as the fact-finder, is entitled to weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences. The Employer failed to present any evidence contradicting the WCJ’s findings or suggesting an alternative explanation for the decline in wages. The Court concluded that the WCJ’s determination was fair and based on the facts presented.

The Court also dismissed the Employer’s analogy between the determination of “average weekly wage” and “primary employment,” finding it unpersuasive and unsupported by authority.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the WCJ’s compensation order and the denial of the motion for reconsideration.