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 employed by the University of New Mexico (UNM) as a telephone triage nurse and reported an injury related to her work in October 2007, diagnosed as tendinitis and later as carpal tunnel syndrome, both related to her work activities. Despite treatment showing improvement, the Worker took on additional employment, first with Su Vida Services, Inc. in April 2008, and then with FoneMed North America, Inc. in June 2008. The Worker's employment with UNM ended in June 2008, and she filed an EEOC claim against UNM, which was settled in October 2008. The Worker experienced aggravated symptoms following her employment with FoneMed, leading to further medical consultations and treatments.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by concluding the Worker had settled her workers' compensation claim through an agreement related to her EEOC claim against UNM and that the injury was a new injury or an aggravation of the previous injury sustained while working for UNM.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in concluding that the Worker had settled her workers' compensation claim by entering into an agreement and release with UNM related to her EEOC claim.
• Whether the WCJ erred in concluding that the Worker’s injury was either a new injury or an aggravation of the injury she sustained while working for UNM.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Administration’s denial of workers' compensation benefits for the Worker was affirmed based on the determination that the Worker’s injury was either a new injury or an aggravation of the injury sustained while working for UNM.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Michael E. Vigil concurring, affirmed the WCJ's decision on the basis that substantial evidence supported the determination that the Worker's injury was aggravated by her subsequent employment with Su Vida and/or FoneMed. The Court found that the Worker had fully recovered from her initial work-related injury by April 15, 2009, as evidenced by medical testimony indicating she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and would likely have had a zero impairment rating. The Court also noted that the Worker's increased symptoms and alleged disability resulted from an aggravation of her prior injury through new employment, particularly with FoneMed, as indicated by medical records and testimony. The Court concluded that UNM was not liable for the Worker's claim arising from an aggravation of the accident first reported at UNM, drawing parallels to precedent where the employer at the time of the original work-related accident was not liable for a disability resulting from an aggravation of that injury while working for a subsequent employer.