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 was concurrently employed in two separate jobs at the time of the accident, which led to a workers' compensation claim. The dispute centers on the calculation of the Worker's aggregate average weekly wage, which determines the compensation benefits. The Worker's benefits were initially calculated by adding the average weekly wages from both jobs and then dividing the total by two, effectively halving the Worker's benefits.

Procedural History

• Vinyard v. Palo Alto, Inc., 2013-NMCA-001, 293 P.3d 191: The first appeal resulted in a formal opinion addressing the calculation of the Worker's aggregate average weekly wage.
• [Not applicable or not found]: The second appeal dealt with a minor point related to evidence but did not address the larger problem of averaging-and-aggregating process, which is the subject of the current appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argues that the calculation method used for determining the aggregate average weekly wage was erroneous, as it halved the Worker's benefits, failing to compensate for the reduction in earning capacity due to the injury sustained while concurrently employed.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Contends that the Worker's failure to bring the calculation error to the Court's attention in an earlier appeal should preclude the Worker from raising the issue now.

Legal Issues

• Whether the method employed to calculate the Worker's aggregate average weekly wage, which resulted in halving the Worker's benefits, was erroneous.
• Whether the Worker's failure to raise the issue of the calculation error in an earlier appeal precludes the Worker from raising it in the current appeal.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the compensation order and remanded for recalculation of the Worker's benefits according to the correct methodology.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Roderick T. Kennedy and James J. Wechsler concurring, the Court found that the method used to calculate the Worker's aggregate average weekly wage was fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court emphasized that fairness mandates compensating the worker according to what they would have earned in total had they not been injured. The Court rejected the Employer/Insurer's argument regarding the law-of-the-case doctrine, stating that the doctrine is discretionary and should not be used to uphold a clearly incorrect decision or accomplish an obvious injustice. The Court concluded that the error in methodology was manifestly erroneous and adherence to it would accomplish an obvious injustice, thus rectifying the situation was warranted (paras 2-5).