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-Appellant sustained a work-related injury while employed by the Employer-Appellee. The dispute centers on the assessment of the Worker’s permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits and whether the Worker’s usual and customary occupation required heavy physical capacity, which would affect the calculation of his PPD benefits. Additionally, the Worker raised concerns about the untimely entry of the compensation order by the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) (paras headnotes, 1, 4, 6).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Helen L. Stirling, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Issued a compensation order assessing the Worker’s PPD benefits and determining that his usual and customary work required light, not heavy, physical capacity (para headnotes).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the WCJ erred in determining his usual and customary work as requiring light physical capacity instead of heavy, which would have increased his PPD modifier values and benefits. He also contended that the WCJ violated the Workers’ Compensation Act by entering the compensation order far outside the mandated 30-day period, causing him financial hardship.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Supported the WCJ’s findings, arguing that the Worker’s usual and customary work at the time of the injury required light physical capacity and that the PPD benefits were correctly calculated. They also contended that the Worker failed to preserve the issue of the untimely compensation order and did not demonstrate prejudice.

Legal Issues

• Did the WCJ err in assessing the Worker’s PPD benefits by determining that his usual and customary work required light, not heavy, physical capacity?
• Did the WCJ violate the Workers’ Compensation Act by entering the compensation order outside the mandated 30-day period, and if so, what are the consequences of this breach?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s compensation order, rejecting the Worker’s arguments regarding both the PPD benefits assessment and the untimely entry of the compensation order.

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Robles and Garcia JJ. concurring):

• The Court reviewed the statutory framework under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-26.4, and determined that the WCJ correctly interpreted the statute. The Worker’s usual and customary work was defined as the type of work he was able to perform prior to the current injury, which was light, not heavy. The Court emphasized that the statute requires comparing the Worker’s pre-injury physical capacity with his residual physical capacity after the injury.
• The Worker’s argument that his usual and customary work was heavy was unsupported by the evidence, as he did not have the capacity to perform heavy work at the time of the injury. The Court agreed with the WCJ’s conclusion that the Worker’s residual physical capacity changed from light to sedentary, not heavy to sedentary.
• Regarding the untimely entry of the compensation order, the Court found that the Worker failed to preserve this issue by not raising it before the WCJ or seeking relief at the time. Additionally, the Worker did not demonstrate how the delay caused him prejudice that would warrant relief on appeal. The Court noted that many of the Worker’s complaints about the delay were not part of the record and could not be considered.
• The Court concluded that the Worker’s remedy for any dissatisfaction with the statutory framework or procedural delays lies with the Legislature, not the judiciary.