AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

  • Gladys Garcia, the worker-appellant, was involved in a case against Lakeview Christian Home and New Mexico Health Care WC Group, the employer/insurer-appellees. The specific events leading to the appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

  • Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, presided over by Lori A. Martinez, Workers’ Compensation Judge.

Parties' Submissions

  • Appellant: The submissions made by Gladys Garcia, the worker-appellant, are not detailed in the provided text.
  • Appellees: The arguments presented by Lakeview Christian Home and New Mexico Health Care WC Group, the employer/insurer-appellees, are not specified in the provided text.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge's decisions on Issues 1, 2, and 5 should be affirmed.
  • Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge's decisions on Issues 3, 4, and 6 should be reversed.

Disposition

  • Issues 1, 2, and 5 are affirmed.
  • Issues 3, 4, and 6 are reversed.
  • The case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Judge to amend the compensation order with regard to Issues 3, 4, and 6.

Reasons

  • Per James J. Wechsler, with Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring: The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the Workers’ Compensation Judge's decisions on Issues 1, 2, and 5 and reverse the decisions on Issues 3, 4, and 6. This decision was based on the Court's second notice of proposed disposition filed on September 8, 2011. No memorandum opposing the proposed summary affirmance on Issues 1, 2, and 5, and summary reversal on Issues 3, 4, and 6, was filed, and the time for doing so had expired. The case was remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Judge for amendment of the compensation order in accordance with the Court’s directions regarding Issues 3, 4, and 6.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.