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 claimant, a worker, sustained an injury while employed by the respondent. Following the injury, the claimant's post-injury wages, combined with partial disability benefits, amounted to 84% of his pre-injury wages. The claimant argued that this amount was not "comparable" to his pre-injury wages under the statutory definition of "permanent total disability" in NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-24 (Cum. Supp. 1986) (paras 1, 6, and 11).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Division: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the claimant's post-injury wages plus partial disability benefits were "comparable" to his pre-injury wages and denied the claim for permanent total disability (para 1).
• Carpenter v. Arkansas Best Corp., 112 N.M. 22, 810 P.2d 1242 (Oct. 30, 1990): The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's decision (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Claimant-Petitioner: Argued that the post-injury wages plus partial disability benefits, totaling 84% of pre-injury wages, were not "comparable" under the statutory definition of permanent total disability. The claimant also contended that the WCJ failed to make particularized findings of comparability (paras 1-2, 6).
• Employer-Respondent: Defended the WCJ's finding that the post-injury wages plus benefits were comparable to pre-injury wages and supported the denial of the claim for permanent total disability (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• What is the meaning of "comparable wage" under the workers' compensation statute and relevant case law? (para 2)
• Did the WCJ err in finding that the claimant's post-injury wages plus partial disability benefits were "comparable" to his pre-injury wages? (paras 2-3)

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the WCJ with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the claimant, determining that he is totally disabled under the statute (paras 3, 13).

Reasons

Per Sosa CJ. (Ransom and Montgomery JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the concept of "comparable wages" under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-24, is a question of law, as the statute provides no specific guidelines or criteria for determining comparability (paras 7-8). The Court interpreted "comparable" to mean "substantially equal" or "equivalent" in light of the statute's purpose, which is to bring the worker as close as possible to their pre-injury wage (paras 8-10).

The Court found that the claimant's post-injury wages plus partial disability benefits, totaling 84% of his pre-injury wages, were not "comparable" under the statute. The difference of 16% between the pre- and post-injury wages was significant and could not be considered "substantially equal" (paras 6, 11). The Court emphasized that the statute aims to ensure that workers who cannot earn comparable wages due to their injuries are deemed totally disabled and entitled to total disability benefits (paras 9-10).

Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case to the WCJ to enter judgment in favor of the claimant, determining that he is totally disabled (para 13).