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, an employee, had a pre-existing permanent physical impairment in his left knee. On May 21, 1985, he sustained a workplace injury to the same knee, resulting in a disability that began the following day. The claimant later filed for temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, which were settled in November 1989. Subsequently, the employer sought apportionment of liability from the New Mexico Subsequent Injury Fund, asserting that the claimant's pre-existing impairment made the resulting disability materially and substantially greater than it would have been from the workplace injury alone (paras 2-3, 6).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The workers' compensation judge dismissed the employer's claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund, holding that it was barred by the statute of limitations (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer (Appellant): Argued that the statute of limitations for filing a claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund should begin when the employer knew or should have known, through reasonable diligence, that the claimant's disability was materially and substantially greater due to the pre-existing impairment. The employer submitted an affidavit from the treating physician, stating that this determination was not apparent until July 1987, after a failed medical procedure in 1986 (paras 3, 13-14).
- Subsequent Injury Fund (Respondent): Contended that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the subsequent injury, May 21, 1985, when the employer had knowledge of both the injury and the pre-existing impairment. The Fund relied on prior case law to support its position (paras 3, 8).
Legal Issues
- When does the statute of limitations begin to run for an employer's claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund under the pre-1988 amendments to the Subsequent Injury Act?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the workers' compensation judge's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (paras 1, 15).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Donnelly and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the statute of limitations for an employer's claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund begins to run when the employer knew or should have known, through reasonable diligence, that the claimant's disability was materially and substantially greater due to the pre-existing impairment. This standard aligns with the principle that a worker's claim against an employer accrues when it becomes reasonably apparent that the injury is compensable (paras 5-6, 13).
The Court rejected the Fund's argument that the statute of limitations always begins on the date of the subsequent injury, clarifying that prior case law did not establish such a rigid rule. Instead, the determination of when the employer knew or should have known is a factual issue that varies by case (paras 7-8, 11).
The employer's submission of the treating physician's affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding when the employer could have reasonably known of its claim against the Fund. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of the Fund was inappropriate (paras 13-14).