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 clerk for the City of Hobbs suffered a workplace injury on September 28, 1994, when she tripped and fell into a counter, twisting her back. Subsequent medical evaluations revealed compression fractures in her spine and a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, an incurable cancer that weakens bones. The worker claimed that the workplace injury aggravated her preexisting condition, leading to increased pain and disability (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded temporary total disability benefits from October 7, 1994, to February 9, 1995, but determined that the worker's permanent partial disability was limited to 10% based solely on the compression fracture, excluding the effects of the preexisting multiple myeloma (paras 4-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the WCJ erred in failing to consider the combined effects of the workplace injury and the preexisting condition when determining permanent partial disability. Cited New Mexico case law supporting compensation for disabilities caused by the combination of workplace injuries and preexisting conditions (paras 7, 12).
- Appellees (Employer/Insurer): Contended that the worker's current inability to work was solely due to the natural progression of the multiple myeloma, which was unrelated to the workplace injury. Argued that only known preexisting impairments, not latent conditions, should be considered in determining disability (paras 12-13).
Legal Issues
- Did the WCJ err in failing to consider the combined effects of the workplace injury and the preexisting condition when determining the worker's permanent partial disability?
- Does New Mexico law require a preexisting condition to be known or impairing prior to the workplace injury to be considered in a disability determination?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ's decision and remanded the case for recalculation of the worker's permanent partial disability, instructing the WCJ to consider the combined effects of the workplace injury and the preexisting condition (paras 25-26).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Bustamante J. concurring):
The Court held that New Mexico law requires consideration of the combined effects of a workplace injury and a preexisting condition when determining disability, even if the preexisting condition was latent or unknown before the injury. The WCJ's distinction between preexisting impairments and conditions was erroneous. The Court emphasized that the employer takes the worker as they find them, and compensation must reflect the total disability caused by the combination of factors (paras 8-12, 20-24).
The Court rejected the employer's argument that the natural progression of the multiple myeloma should exclude it from consideration, noting that the workplace injury aggravated the worker's condition by increasing pain and complicating treatment. The WCJ's reliance on hypothetical recovery timelines for a healthy worker was inconsistent with established legal principles (paras 19, 23-24).
Per Hartz CJ. (concurring in part, dissenting in part):
Hartz CJ. agreed with the remand but dissented in part, arguing that the worker should not receive benefits for disabilities caused solely by the natural progression of the multiple myeloma after the workplace injury. He contended that compensation should be limited to the combined effects of the workplace injury and the preexisting condition as they existed at the time of the accident. Hartz CJ. expressed concern that the majority's reasoning improperly expanded New Mexico law and failed to distinguish between temporary aggravation and permanent disability (paras 29-45).