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

A worker employed by the City of Albuquerque as a Wastewater II worker sustained a back injury in 1999, resulting in permanent work restrictions. After exhausting his injury time, the worker was placed on "physical layoff" status and was not offered a return-to-work position despite the availability of jobs within his restrictions. The worker sought reemployment in a modified position and alleged unfair claims processing practices by the City (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the City violated its obligation to rehire the worker under NMSA 1978, § 52-1-50.1, ordered the City to find a suitable job for the worker, and imposed a 25% penalty for unfair claims processing practices (paras 5, 27).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (City of Albuquerque): Argued that the WCJ lacked authority to enforce the rehire provisions of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-50.1, to impose penalties for unfair claims processing, or to add new issues to the pre-trial order. The City also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support findings of available jobs for the worker and that the WCJ improperly referred allegations of retaliatory discharge to the Workers' Compensation Administration (paras 6, 10, 14, 17, 21, 28).

• Appellee (Worker): Asserted that the City failed to comply with its statutory obligation to rehire him in a modified position and engaged in unfair claims processing practices by not acting promptly or properly on his rehire request (paras 4, 22-23).

Legal Issues

• Did the WCJ have the authority to enforce the rehire provisions of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-50.1?
• Could the WCJ impose a penalty for unfair claims processing practices related to the City's failure to rehire the worker?
• Was the WCJ justified in adding new issues to the pre-trial order?
• Was there substantial evidence to support the finding that the City had available jobs for which the worker was qualified?
• Did the WCJ properly refer allegations of retaliatory discharge to the Workers' Compensation Administration?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the WCJ had the authority to order the City to find a suitable job for the worker, impose a penalty for unfair claims processing, and refer allegations of retaliatory discharge to the Administration (paras 31-32).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Bosson CJ. and Alarid J. concurring):

• Authority to Enforce Rehire Provisions: The WCJ was authorized to enforce the rehire provisions of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-50.1 by ordering the City to find a suitable job for the worker. The exclusive remedy provision in the statute, which limits penalties to fines imposed by the director, does not preclude the WCJ from ensuring compliance with the statute (paras 17-20).

• Unfair Claims Processing Penalty: The WCJ properly imposed a 25% penalty for unfair claims processing practices. The City's failure to act promptly and properly on the worker's rehire request constituted an unfair claims processing practice under NMSA 1978, § 52-1-28.1. The penalty was distinct from the fine under § 52-1-50.1 and addressed separate conduct (paras 21-27).

• Addition of New Issues: The WCJ did not err in amending the pre-trial order to include new issues, as the City was not prejudiced by the addition. The WCJ made no findings on bad faith, and the referral of retaliatory discharge allegations to the Administration was within the WCJ's authority (paras 10-13).

• Substantial Evidence: The WCJ's finding that the City had 23 available jobs within the worker's restrictions was supported by substantial evidence, including job descriptions and the worker's physician's certification of his capabilities. Conflicting evidence was resolved by the WCJ, who found the worker's treating physician more credible (paras 14-16).

• Referral of Retaliatory Discharge Allegations: The WCJ properly referred allegations of retaliatory discharge to the Administration for investigation. The evidence of the worker's prolonged "physical layoff" status and lack of job assignment supported the referral (paras 28-30).