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 case involves a worker from Hanna Plumbing & Heating Company, Inc., who suffered injuries leading to both scheduled and non-scheduled impairments. The worker filed for workers' compensation benefits, which led to disputes over the calculation of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, the start date for PPD benefits, total impairment rating, and the methodology for combining injuries for compensation purposes. Additionally, there was a third-party lawsuit settlement related to the worker's injuries.

Procedural History

• Case v. Hanna Plumbing & Heating Co., A-1-CA No. 34,934 memo op. (N.M. Ct. App. July 18, 2017): The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) compensation order on issues including the award of both PPD and scheduled injury benefits, the start date for PPD benefits, assessments of total impairment rating, and the employer’s reimbursement rights from a third-party lawsuit settlement.

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Insurer-Appellants: Argued that the WCJ did not comply with the appellate court's prior mandate, improperly combined scheduled and non-scheduled injuries for PPD calculation, made errors in determining permanent impairments and the impairment rating for the low back, and made an erroneous reimbursement analysis/determination.
• Worker-Appellee: Countered that the WCJ complied with the appellate court's decision by expanding findings as instructed, and supported the WCJ's reassessment and calculations regarding injuries and benefits.

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ complied with the appellate court's prior mandate in reassessing the worker's compensation order.
• Whether combining scheduled and non-scheduled injuries for one PPD calculation is contrary to law.
• Whether the WCJ erred in determining permanent impairments and the specific impairment rating for the low back.
• Whether the WCJ's reimbursement analysis/determination from a third-party lawsuit settlement was erroneous.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the issue of combining scheduled and non-scheduled injuries into one PPD calculation, finding it contrary to law and improperly inflated the worker's PPD rating.
• Affirmed the WCJ's decisions on all other issues.

Reasons

• Compliance with Prior Mandate: The Court found that the WCJ complied with its directives from the first appeal by reassessing and expanding prior findings and providing detailed analyses and explanations (paras 6-7).
  Combining Scheduled and Unscheduled Injuries: The Court agreed with the employer that combining injuries for PPD calculation was contrary to law, as it inflated the worker's PPD rating beyond legal provisions. Scheduled and non-scheduled injuries should be awarded separately (paras 11-15).
  Reimbursement Analysis: The Court disagreed with the employer's argument that the WCJ allowed double recovery by the worker from both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party lawsuit settlement. The WCJ found the worker had proven most of the settlement covered damages not compensated by workers' compensation (paras 8-10).
  Substantial Evidence: The Court found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's findings on the worker's permanent impairments and specific impairment ratings, including medical testimony and independent medical examinations (paras 16-19).