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

• Orlando Gonzales, Jr., a window washer employed by Zen Window Cleaning, was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in injuries. His job required traveling to different customer locations daily. On the day of the accident, after being allowed to leave work early, Gonzales was driving back to the storage facility with a coworker when his car was rear-ended. The accident occurred after Gonzales had completed his work for the day and was on his way to pick up his wife from work, a routine he followed daily. The coworker had offered Gonzales $5.00 for the ride back to the storage facility (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that his injuries should be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, claiming that the accident occurred within the scope of his employment. He contended that he met the requirements for exceptions to the going-and-coming rule, specifically the traveling-employee exception, and proposed the adoption of a new "own conveyance" exception not currently recognized in New Mexico (para 6).
• Uninsured/Employer-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Employer-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text. However, it can be inferred that the Employer-Appellee argued against the compensability of Worker's injuries under the Workers' Compensation Act, likely on the basis that the accident did not occur within the scope of employment (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's injuries are compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act as injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.
• Whether the Worker qualifies for the traveling-employee exception to the going-and-coming rule.
• Whether a new "own conveyance" exception to the going-and-coming rule should be adopted in New Mexico (paras 6, 9, 22).

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge's conclusion that Worker’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with Employer and therefore were not compensable under the Act was affirmed. Worker's claim was dismissed with prejudice (para 24).

Reasons

• M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's decision that the Worker's injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Worker had completed his daily work activities and had permission from the Employer to leave the work site when the accident occurred. The court considered the agreement to drive the other employee as voluntary ride sharing, which did not fall under the Workers' Compensation Act (paras 5, 7-8, 15).
  The court reviewed the Worker's motion for judgment on the pleadings and found no error in the WCJ's denial of the motion. The court held that the substantive issue of whether Worker was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident required a full trial on the merits (paras 16-21).
  The court declined to adopt the "own conveyance" rule as an additional exception to the going-and-coming rule, citing a lack of substantive analysis or argument from the Worker to support the adoption of this rule in New Mexico (paras 22-23).