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 Plaintiff, a maintenance and janitorial employee at Cimarron Elementary-Middle School, suffered work-related injuries. After filing a workers' compensation claim for these injuries, the Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation by the Defendants, culminating in his termination (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendants unlawfully retaliated against him for filing a workers' compensation claim, seeking to bring a claim under Section 52-1-28.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) in district court (paras 4-5).
• Defendants: Successfully moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, leading to the dismissal of the case by the district court (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court has jurisdiction over a claim brought under Section 52-1-28.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act for retaliatory discharge following a workers' compensation claim (paras 7-8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Gerald E. Baca presiding and Judges Shammara H. Henderson and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, found that the Plaintiff's attempt to bring a claim under Section 52-1-28.2 of the WCA in district court was based on a misapplication of the Supreme Court's decision in Michaels v. Anglo American Auto Auctions, Inc. The Court clarified that while Michaels allows for common law actions for retaliatory discharge independent of the WCA, the Plaintiff expressly denied pursuing a common law claim, instead arguing his claim arose under Section 52-1-28.2. This choice, according to the Court, stripped the district court of jurisdiction over the claim because claims under the WCA are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the WCA. The Court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the claim as presented by the Plaintiff, leading to the decision to reverse and remand for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction (paras 5-9).