AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 experienced an accident leading to upper extremity pain and subsequently requested an ergonomic evaluation from her employer, Los Alamos National Laboratory, instead of directly reporting the injury. The accident occurred no later than February 2016, but the Worker did not formally report this injury to her employer until April 4, 2016 (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the failure to provide timely notice was due to the Worker not realizing she had a work-related injury until after the initial treatment through an ergonomic effort did not resolve the pain (para 5).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker provided timely notice of her accident to the Employer as required by NMSA 1978, § 52-1-29(A) (1990) (para 2).
• Whether Dr. Pasqualoni’s testimony should have been excluded under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-51(C) (2013) because she was not a health care provider as defined by the Act (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation order denying the Worker benefits for failure to provide timely notice (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, J. Miles Hanisee, and Megan P. Duffy, found substantial evidence supporting the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) determination that the Worker failed to give timely notice of her accident to the Employer. The WCJ found that the Worker's accident occurred no later than February 2016, but she did not report this to her employer until April 4, 2016. The Court applied the whole record standard of review, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the agency decision, and concluded that the evidence supporting the decision was substantial. The Worker's argument that there was conflicting evidence regarding her realization of the work-related injury was not sufficient to reweigh the evidence on appeal. Additionally, the Worker's claim regarding the exclusion of Dr. Pasqualoni’s testimony was not supported by any new argument or error of fact or law, leading the Court to rely on its calendar notice for that issue (paras 2-7).