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

• A worker employed as a senior director of operations by Papa John’s Pizza in New Mexico was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on duty. Despite sustaining injuries, the worker returned to work the next day and continued working for two more months until being terminated for allegedly submitting false expense reports. The worker had not missed more than a single day of work due to the accident nor had he submitted any claim related to the accident at the time of his termination. Four months after his termination, the worker filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in the accident (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory Griego, Judge: The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) deemed the accident incidental to employment, awarded workers' compensation benefits, ordered the worker to reimburse the employer for certain amounts out of a third-party tort recovery, and required the employer to rehire the worker in a different location (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Employer-Insurer-Appellants/Cross-Appellees: Argued that the WCJ improperly applied the statute because the worker's termination was not related to his work injury, and therefore, the worker did not qualify for compelled rehire (para 6).
• Worker-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Contended that the reimbursement amount was inaccurately calculated, arguing it improperly included amounts the employer paid as a result of the worker's termination, which was unrelated to the work accident (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ improperly ordered the employer to rehire the worker, given the nature of the worker's termination was unrelated to his injury.
• Whether the WCJ's reimbursement calculations, including amounts the employer paid to the worker as a result of the work accident, were accurate.

Disposition

• The order requiring the employer to rehire the worker was reversed because the worker's termination was unrelated to his injury.
• The WCJ’s reimbursement calculations were affirmed as they correctly included amounts the employer paid to the worker as a result of the work accident (para 1).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the statute requires a worker to have ceased working due to the work injury for the WCJ to order rehire. Since the worker's termination was for reasons unrelated to the work injury, the statute did not apply, and the order of rehire was improper (paras 6-8).
  The court distinguished the case from other jurisdictions by emphasizing the specific requirements of the New Mexico statute and the facts of the case, which did not support a compelled rehire (paras 9-10).
  Regarding the reimbursement calculations, the court upheld the WCJ's methodology, confirming that the amounts paid to the worker as a result of the work accident were correctly included in the reimbursement calculation. The court reasoned that all recovery awarded derived from the automobile accident and that the worker's third-party tort recovery directly stemmed from that same injury, thus disallowing multiple recoveries for a single injury (paras 12-17).