This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Three truck drivers employed by Continental Express Trucking were injured while working outside New Mexico. Their employment agreements stipulated that Arkansas law would govern workers' compensation claims. Two of the workers had previously applied for and received Arkansas workers' compensation benefits before filing claims in New Mexico. The workers disputed whether New Mexico had jurisdiction over their claims, given the "extra-territorial coverage" provisions of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ): Awarded New Mexico workers' compensation benefits to one worker (Cawyer) after determining his employment was principally localized in New Mexico. Dismissed the claims of the other two workers (Phillips and Gonzales) on summary judgment, finding New Mexico lacked jurisdiction (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer/Insurer (Appellants): Argued that the employment agreements, which specified Arkansas law as governing workers' compensation claims, were enforceable under New Mexico law. Asserted that the workers traveled regularly in Arkansas, satisfying statutory requirements for the choice of Arkansas law (paras 3, 17-19).
- Workers (Appellees): Contended that their employment was principally localized in New Mexico and that the choice of law provisions in the agreements were invalid. Argued that their travel to Arkansas was infrequent and not regular, and thus New Mexico law should apply (paras 3, 7-8, 17).
Legal Issues
- Does the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act allow for the enforcement of choice of law provisions in employment agreements under Section 52-1-67(B)?
- Were the workers required to travel regularly in Arkansas, as required by Section 52-1-67(B), to validate the choice of Arkansas law in their employment agreements?
- Was the employment of the workers principally localized in New Mexico, thereby granting New Mexico jurisdiction over their claims?
Disposition
- The award of New Mexico workers' compensation benefits to Cawyer was affirmed.
- The summary judgments dismissing the claims of Phillips and Gonzales were reversed, and their cases were remanded for further proceedings (para 38).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Pickard and Flores JJ. concurring):
Choice of Law Provisions: The court interpreted Section 52-1-67(B) of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act to allow explicit agreements concerning choice of law, even without an explicit agreement about where employment is principally localized. However, such agreements are enforceable only if the worker is required to travel regularly in the chosen state (paras 14-16, 19).
Regularity of Travel: The court analyzed whether the workers' travel to Arkansas was sufficiently regular to meet the statutory requirements. It considered factors such as frequency, consistency, and predictability of travel, as well as the nature of the trucking industry (paras 22-24).
- Cawyer: The court found that Cawyer's travel to Arkansas was infrequent and not part of his regular route, particularly in the two years preceding his injury. Thus, the choice of law provision was unenforceable, and New Mexico law applied (paras 25-28).
- Gonzales: The court determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Gonzales' travel to Arkansas was regular, given the significant decrease in trips to Arkansas after her first year of employment. Summary judgment was inappropriate (paras 29-32).
- Phillips: Similarly, the court found that Phillips' travel to Arkansas was inconsistent and varied over the years. The record did not conclusively establish regular travel, warranting a trial on the merits (paras 33-36).
Localization of Employment: The court emphasized that the determination of whether employment is principally localized in New Mexico is fact-dependent and must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the workers' routes and the nature of their employment (paras 20, 35).
Conclusion: The court upheld the WCJ's decision awarding benefits to Cawyer and reversed the summary judgments against Phillips and Gonzales, remanding their cases for further proceedings to resolve factual disputes (paras 37-38).