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, employed as an attorney with the New Mexico Human Services Department, suffered multiple injuries following a workplace slip and fall on an icy sidewalk. These injuries included a knee injury, an allergic reaction to an antibiotic leading to a traumatic brain injury, and a pulmonary embolism. The worker received over $659,000 in workers' compensation benefits, which were not disputed. The case centered on whether these injuries constituted more than one "single accidental injury" under the Workers' Compensation Act for the purpose of calculating attorney fees (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Judge: Awarded two attorney fee caps for two separate accidental injuries.
- Martin v. State, A-1-CA-36527: The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ's award of two attorney fee caps, granting only one cap, and affirmed the denial of both permanent partial and total disability benefits (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker-Petitioner: Argued entitlement to three attorney fee caps for three separate accidental injuries: the slip-and-fall injury, the allergic-reaction injury, and the pulmonary embolism injury (para 9).
- Employer/Insurer-Respondents: Contended that all injuries stemmed from a single accidental injury, limiting attorney fees to one cap of $22,500 (para 13).
Legal Issues
- Whether the worker suffered more than one "single accidental injury" under the Workers' Compensation Act for the purpose of calculating attorney fees.
- Whether the worker preserved the claim for both permanent partial disability and permanent total disability benefits.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the worker failed to preserve the claim for both PPD and PTD benefits.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the attorney fee cap issue, determining that the worker was entitled to three attorney fee caps and remanded the case for a proper determination of attorney fees (para 34).
Reasons
Per Vargas, Justice (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon JJ., and Franchini J. concurring):
The Court found that the plain language of the statute allows for a subsequent injury that flows from a primary workplace injury to constitute a "single accidental injury" for attorney fee purposes. The Court concluded that the worker's allergic-reaction injury and pulmonary embolism were separate accidental injuries, each warranting a separate attorney fee cap. The Court emphasized that the statutory language focuses on the injury itself rather than the event causing it, and the policies underlying the statute support adequate representation for workers while avoiding excessive legal costs. The Court also noted that the attorney fee cap applies per accidental injury, not per claim or accident (paras 12-27).