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, employed by the employer, suffered a back injury in June 1990 after a fall at work. She did not return to work following the accident and claimed workers' compensation benefits, including temporary total disability, permanent total disability, permanent partial disability, vocational rehabilitation, medical expenses, and a lump sum settlement (para 2).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration, September 1990: A mediation conference was held, and the employer rejected the recommended resolution, leading to a formal hearing (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Employer and Insurer): Argued that the worker failed to present substantial medical evidence to establish that her disability was caused by the work-related accident to a reasonable medical probability, as required by law. They also contended that certain documents in the "supplemental record proper" were not part of the evidence before the judge and should not be considered on appeal (paras 1, 3, 5, and 11).
- Appellee (Worker): Claimed that the judge could take judicial notice of the documents in the supplemental record proper and that these documents supported the finding of causation between her disability and the work-related accident (paras 5, 8, and 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the supplemental record proper, which was not introduced as evidence at the formal hearing, could be considered on appeal (para 1).
- Whether there was substantial evidence in the whole record to support the judge's conclusion that the worker's disability was caused by the work-related accident to a reasonable medical probability (para 1).
Disposition
- The court held that the supplemental record proper could not be considered on appeal as it was not introduced as evidence at the formal hearing (para 10).
- The court concluded that there was not substantial evidence in the whole record to support the judge's finding of causation and reversed the award of benefits (paras 13-14).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Minzner and Flores JJ. concurring):
The court determined that the review of administrative proceedings is limited to the evidence presented at the formal hearing. Documents in the supplemental record proper, which were not introduced as evidence or judicially noticed by the judge, could not be considered on appeal. The court emphasized that judicial notice could only be taken of facts not subject to reasonable dispute, and causation in this case was a contested issue (paras 4-10).
The court further found that the worker failed to present expert medical evidence establishing a causal connection between her disability and the work-related accident to a reasonable medical probability, as required by Section 52-1-28(B). None of the exhibits introduced at the hearing provided the necessary medical opinion on causation. As a result, the judge's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record (paras 11-12).