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 involved in a vehicular accident on December 6, 2009, while in the course and scope of his employment, leading to a dispute over the calculation of his average weekly wage given his two concurrent jobs. After a series of appeals concerning the calculation of the Worker's average weekly wage and attorney fees, the Worker appealed the denial of his request for fee-shifting under the Workers’ Compensation Act, for additional attorney fees beyond the Act’s fee cap, and for additional interest based on the alleged bad faith conduct of the Employer (para 2).

Procedural History

• Vinyard v. Palo Alto, Inc. (Vinyard I), 2013-NMCA-001, 293 P.3d 191: The Court held that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) had incorrectly calculated the Worker's average weekly wage and remanded the case back to the WCJ. The Court also affirmed the WCJ’s award of $15,000 in attorney fees to be split equally between the parties (para 3).
• Vinyard II and Vinyard III (unpublished opinions): The Court reversed the WCJ’s calculation of average weekly wages and remanded to the WCJ with guidance on the correct method of calculation (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker: Argued that the entire attorney fees award should be shifted to the Employer based on the Employer's failure to accept a mediator's recommended resolution and alleged bad faith in requesting an independent medical examination (IME). The Worker also sought additional attorney fees on appeal (paras 7-9).
• Employer: Moved for an order authorizing an IME of the Worker based on his use of narcotic pain medications, which the Worker opposed, alleging bad faith and requesting additional attorney fees (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker is entitled to fee-shifting for the entire attorney fees award pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(E), (F) (2013) of the Workers' Compensation Act.
• Whether the Employer's request for an IME was made in bad faith, thus warranting additional attorney fees above the cap and additional interest at 15 percent.
• Whether the Worker is entitled to additional attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Rule 12-403(B)(3) NMRA (paras 9, 12, 26, 32).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the WCJ’s orders denying the Worker's request for fee-shifting, additional attorney fees beyond the Act’s cap, and additional interest based on alleged bad faith conduct of the Employer. The Court also denied the Worker's request for attorney fees on appeal (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found that the Worker did not make a valid offer of judgment as required by Section 52-1-54(F) to trigger fee-shifting and that the Employer's request for an IME, without more, could not constitute bad faith. The Court also held that the statutory cap on attorney fees limits the ability to award additional attorney fees for work done on appeals, thus denying the Worker's request for additional attorney fees pursuant to Rule 12-403(B)(3) (paras 19-25, 27-28, 33).