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 as a computer keyboard operator suffered a work-related back injury on January 14, 1992. He received temporary total disability benefits until April 30, 1992, when payments were terminated. The worker was initially treated by his chosen physician, who later assessed a 20% permanent impairment in December 1992. However, the employer's designated physician had earlier determined in April 1992 that the worker had reached maximum medical improvement with no impairment (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Judge: Granted the worker's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the employer's affirmative defense that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and awarded the worker 21% permanent partial disability (paras 1, 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Employer/Insurer): Argued that the worker's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as it was filed more than one year after the termination of benefits. They contended that the worker knew or should have known of his compensable injury in April 1992, based on his own testimony and the employer's physician's findings (paras 6-8, 12-13).
- Worker (Appellee): Asserted that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until December 23, 1992, when his chosen physician informed him of a 20% permanent impairment. He argued that he could not have reasonably known of his compensable injury earlier, as the employer's physician had told him he had no impairment (paras 9-11).
Legal Issues
- Whether the worker's claim for compensation benefits was barred by the statute of limitations.
- Whether the evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding of a 21% permanent partial disability as of April 27, 1992.
Disposition
- The order granting summary judgment in favor of the worker was reversed.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve factual issues regarding the statute of limitations (para 26).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca CJ and Wechsler J. concurring):
- The court found that the evidence presented by the employer raised a material factual dispute regarding when the worker knew or should have known of his compensable injury. The worker's own testimony suggested he questioned the employer's physician's findings in April 1992 and consulted an attorney shortly thereafter, which could indicate earlier knowledge of his injury (paras 6-8, 13).
- The court held that the stricter evidentiary requirements under the amended Workers' Compensation Act did not alter the general rule that the statute of limitations begins to run when the worker knew or reasonably should have known of a compensable injury. The determination of this issue is a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment (paras 14-18).
- Regarding the 21% disability rating, the court found sufficient evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding. The independent medical examiner's testimony, combined with the employer's physician's determination of maximum medical improvement on April 27, 1992, allowed the judge to infer the worker's impairment as of that date (paras 19-25).