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-Appellee suffered partial hearing loss in both ears due to his employment. The dispute arose over the number of weeks of compensation benefits the Worker was entitled to under New Mexico’s workers’ compensation statute, specifically NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-43(A) and (B).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration: The Workers’ Compensation Judge ruled in favor of the Worker, awarding 150 weeks of compensation for partial hearing loss in both ears.

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Insurer (Appellants): Argued that the Worker should only receive 40 weeks of compensation for each ear, totaling 80 weeks, based on their interpretation of the statute. They contended that the Worker’s impairment rating was low, his daily activities were minimally impacted, and he returned to his pre-accident job, suggesting the award of 150 weeks was excessive.
• Worker (Appellee): Supported the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s interpretation of the statute, arguing that partial hearing loss in both ears should be compensated for 150 weeks as provided under Section 52-1-43(A)(43) and (B).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker was entitled to 150 weeks of compensation for partial hearing loss in both ears under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-43(A)(43) and (B).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision, holding that the Worker was entitled to 150 weeks of compensation for partial hearing loss in both ears.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia, JJ., concurring):

The Court conducted a de novo review of the statutory interpretation issue. It emphasized that the plain language of Section 52-1-43(B) applies to all injuries listed in Section 52-1-43(A), including partial hearing loss in both ears. The Court rejected the Employer’s argument that the statute should be interpreted to calculate compensation separately for each ear, as this would render Subsection (B) inapplicable to Subsection (A)(43). The Court reasoned that the Legislature’s inclusion of “deafness in both ears” as a specific injury in Subsection (A)(43) indicated an intent to treat it as a single injury for compensation purposes. The Court also noted that the Employer’s arguments about the Worker’s low impairment rating and minimal impact on daily activities were irrelevant to the statutory interpretation issue.