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 appealed the denial of their motion for reconsideration by a workers' compensation judge regarding attorney fees and the employer's offer in relation to the compensation awarded.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, David L. Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Denied Worker's motion for reconsideration.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued for the reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's decision regarding the denial of their motion.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the workers' compensation judge erred in denying Worker's motion for reconsideration regarding the splitting of attorney fees between Worker and Employer/Insurer.

Disposition

• The workers' compensation judge’s denial of Worker's motion for reconsideration was reversed.
• The case was remanded with instructions to the workers' compensation judge that unless a sanction should be applied pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(F)(3), Worker's attorney fees should have been split equally between Worker and Employer/Insurer.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael D. Bustamante and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, the Court of Appeals reversed the workers' compensation judge's decision due to the absence of an opposing memorandum to the proposed summary reversal and based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition filed on October 5, 2012. The appellate court found that the employer's offer was not greater than the amount awarded to the Worker, which meant the employer did not obtain a more favorable result. Consequently, the default provision in Section 52-1-54(J) applied, necessitating the equal splitting of attorney fees between Worker and Employer/Insurer.