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 54-year-old groundskeeper and handyman for the City of Albuquerque, suffered a work-related injury to his left shoulder on September 2, 1988, while employed at the Rio Grande Zoo. He had a history of prior disabilities, including being classified as totally disabled under the Social Security Act and the Public Employees Retirement Act. The claimant, who has limited education and literacy, underwent surgery for a torn rotator cuff and was later restricted to light-duty or sedentary work due to his physical limitations (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge awarded the claimant permanent partial disability benefits, finding him 38% permanently partially disabled, and denied claims of total permanent disability, bad faith by the City, and judicial bias (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Claimant-Appellant: Argued that he was permanently totally disabled due to his age, limited education, and physical restrictions, and that the City acted in bad faith by refusing to pay benefits prior to adjudication. He also alleged judicial bias in the decision-making process (paras 1, 6, 11-13, 22-23).
- Respondent-Appellee (City of Albuquerque): Contended that the claimant was only partially disabled, presenting evidence of a 28.6% disability rating based on vocational and medical assessments. The City denied bad faith and argued that its reliance on medical opinions justified its actions (paras 5-6, 14-15, 23-24).
Legal Issues
- Whether the claimant was permanently totally disabled under the 1987 Workers' Compensation Act (para 1).
- Whether the Workers' Compensation Judge erred in finding the claimant 38% permanently partially disabled (para 1).
- Whether the City acted in bad faith by refusing to pay benefits prior to adjudication (para 1).
- Whether the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was influenced by bias or prejudice (para 1).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of claims of judicial bias and bad faith.
- The Court reversed the finding that the claimant was 38% permanently partially disabled and remanded the case for redetermination of the claimant's disability and attorney's fees (paras 25-26).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca J. concurring):
The Court found that the Workers' Compensation Judge erred in determining the claimant's disability as 38% permanently partially disabled. The vocational expert for the City used an incorrect formula that combined "capacity to perform work" and "wage-earning ability," which was inconsistent with the statutory definitions under the 1987 Workers' Compensation Act. Additionally, the expert failed to adequately consider the claimant's age, a required factor under the Act (paras 15-17, 20-21).
The Court held that the evidence presented supported a disability range of 51% to 100%, but there was no competent evidence to justify a finding below 51%. The case was remanded for redetermination of the claimant's disability within the proper evidentiary range (paras 20-21).
On the issues of bad faith and judicial bias, the Court found no evidence to support the claimant's allegations. The City's reliance on medical opinions and its actions in handling the claim were deemed reasonable, and the claimant failed to preserve or substantiate the claim of judicial bias (paras 22-24).
Per Hartz J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Hartz J. agreed with the majority on affirming the denial of claims of judicial bias and bad faith but dissented on the issue of the claimant's disability. He argued that the Court should not impose a minimum disability finding of 51% and instead remand the case for further findings and conclusions. Hartz J. emphasized the need for a clearer explanation of the legal standard for measuring partial disability and suggested that the Workers' Compensation Judge's original finding could potentially be justified with additional findings (paras 27-36).