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 the employer, injured her back while lifting a typewriter during the course of her employment. Despite a history of back problems from prior and subsequent injuries, she returned to her pre-injury job full-time at her full salary. Shortly after resuming her duties, she was terminated for workplace behavior unrelated to her injury, which she claimed was wrongful. Following her termination, she held two other jobs, with her current job paying more than her pre-injury position (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court determined that the worker was 15% partially disabled under the 1985 workers' compensation law and awarded her compensation benefits.
Parties' Submissions
- Employer (Appellant): Argued that the trial court applied the wrong standard by focusing on physical impairment rather than the worker's ability to perform work. The employer contended that the worker's return to her pre-injury job full-time at full pay and her current higher-paying job demonstrated that she was not disabled under the 1985 standard (para 3).
- Worker (Appellee): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court apply the correct standard for determining partial disability under the 1985 workers' compensation law?
- Can a worker who has returned to full-time employment and earns a higher salary than before still be considered partially disabled?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety (para 8).
Reasons
Per Sosa CJ. (Montgomery and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The Court held that under the 1985 workers' compensation law, disability is determined by the worker's inability to perform some of the work for which they are fitted, considering their age, education, training, and physical and mental condition. The existence of post-injury employment, even at a higher salary, does not preclude a finding of partial disability (paras 4-5).
The Court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's determination of 15% partial disability, including the worker's ongoing pain, inability to lift heavy objects, and limited torso movement. The worker's ability to perform her job despite these limitations was attributed to her perseverance and did not negate the finding of partial disability (paras 6-7).
The Court emphasized that the degree of disability is a question of fact for the trial court, and its determination is binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence (para 7).