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 sustained a back injury on January 6, 2000, during the course of employment. Following the injury, the Worker received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and sought treatment from the Employer's healthcare provider before switching to another doctor. The parties negotiated over the TTD rate and medical benefits, with the Worker submitting an offer for a compensation order in March 2003, which the Employer rejected as ambiguous. Subsequent negotiations led to a final compensation order in June 2003, which included a higher TTD rate and additional medical benefits (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) issued a compensation order based on the parties' stipulation and later ordered the Employer to pay 100% of the Worker's attorney fees (paras 1, 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Appellant: Argued that the Worker's initial offer was ambiguous, failed to show it was less than the final compensation order, and that the circumstances, including minimal effort by the Worker's attorney during settlement negotiations, did not justify awarding 100% of attorney fees (para 1).
• Worker/Appellee: Claimed that the final compensation order exceeded the initial offer, entitling the Worker to 100% of attorney fees under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(F)(4) (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Was the Worker's offer for a compensation order ambiguous under Section 52-1-54(F)(4)?
• Did the final compensation order exceed the Worker's offer, justifying the award of 100% attorney fees?
• Should the fee-shifting provision of Section 52-1-54(F)(4) apply despite the Employer's good faith efforts to settle and the minimal time spent by the Worker's attorney during negotiations?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's decision to award the Worker 100% of attorney fees to be paid by the Employer (para 21).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Sutin and Fry JJ. concurring):

• The Court found that the Worker's offer was not ambiguous. The offer clearly stated that Dr. Marchand would determine the maximum medical improvement (MMI) date, and the lack of a specific MMI date did not render the offer ambiguous, as the healing process was ongoing. The Employer's counteroffer also lacked a specific MMI date, further supporting the validity of the Worker's offer (paras 9-13).

• The Court concluded that the final compensation order exceeded the Worker's offer. The final order included a higher TTD rate and reimbursement for medical bills from late 2002, which were not part of the Worker's initial offer. These additional benefits justified the WCJ's finding that the final order exceeded the offer (paras 14-16).

• The Court rejected the Employer's argument that the fee-shifting provision should not apply due to the Employer's good faith efforts to settle and the minimal time spent by the Worker's attorney. The statutory provision under Section 52-1-54(F)(4) mandates fee-shifting when the final order exceeds the offer, regardless of these factors. The WCJ acted within its discretion in awarding 100% of attorney fees (paras 17-20).