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 filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) improperly rejected her peremptory challenge to disqualify the judge. The Worker sought to have the compensation order set aside, arguing that it was void due to the WCJ's failure to recuse himself (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Division (WCD), July 11, 1991: The WCD issued a compensation order denying the Worker's claim for benefits. The Worker appealed, but the order was affirmed in an unpublished opinion (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the compensation order was void because the WCJ improperly rejected her peremptory challenge, citing the precedent set in Wineman v. Kelly's Restaurant (paras 3-4).
- Respondent (County of Bernalillo): Contended that the Worker's motion to set aside the compensation order was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, as the Worker had already unsuccessfully appealed the compensation order on other grounds (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Was the compensation order void due to the WCJ's failure to honor the Worker's peremptory challenge?
- Does the doctrine of res judicata bar the Worker's motion to set aside the compensation order?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Worker's motion to set aside the compensation order (para 14).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Minzner C.J. and Pickard J. concurring):
The Court held that the compensation order was not void under Section 52-5-9(B)(6) of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act. The term "void" in this context does not allow for collateral attacks on final judgments when the issue could have been raised on direct appeal. The Worker failed to challenge the WCJ's rejection of her peremptory challenge in her initial appeal, and the doctrines of res judicata and finality of judgments precluded her from relitigating the issue (paras 4-7, 13).
The Court distinguished the present case from Wineman v. Kelly's Restaurant, noting that Wineman addressed the voidability of actions taken by a WCJ after a peremptory challenge on direct appeal, not in subsequent collateral proceedings. The Court also drew analogies to personal jurisdiction cases, where judgments are not considered void if the jurisdictional issue was litigated and resolved in prior proceedings (paras 7-11).
The Court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation and found that the Worker's failure to appeal the WCJ's rejection of her peremptory challenge constituted a waiver of her right to raise the issue later. As a result, the compensation order was upheld (paras 11-13).