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 suffered injuries on two separate occasions while employed by the Employer, leading to injuries to his lower back and left testicle. After initial treatments and evaluations, the Worker was deemed to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for both injuries. However, upon deciding to undergo surgery for his left testicle injury, a change in his condition was claimed, leading to a dispute over the status of his MMI and entitlement to further compensation benefits.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers Compensation Judge: The WCJ determined that the Worker had a change of condition upon deciding to undergo surgery, thus was not at MMI, and affirmed the Worker's entitlement to further benefits.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Argued that the decision to undergo surgery constituted a change in condition, thus he was no longer at MMI and entitled to further benefits.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellants/Cross-Appellees: Contended that the Worker's decision to have surgery did not constitute a change in condition as his physical or medical condition had not changed since being deemed at MMI; argued that judicial estoppel and the law-of-the-case doctrine should preclude the Worker from claiming he was not at MMI.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's decision to undergo surgery constituted a "change of condition" under NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-9(B)(1), thus affecting his MMI status.
• Whether judicial estoppel or the law-of-the-case doctrine bars the Worker from changing his position regarding his MMI status.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the WCJ's decision that the Worker had a change of condition upon deciding to undergo surgery, thus was not at MMI, and was entitled to further benefits.

Reasons

• The court held that a change in condition must relate to a worker’s physical or medical condition and is broad enough to encompass a situation where the worker’s condition will change due to the election to undergo different treatment. The decision to have surgery was directly tied to the Worker’s physical condition and the expected improvement of the condition by undergoing the surgery, thus constituting a change in condition sufficient to support the WCJ’s conclusion that the Worker was not at MMI. The court further held that neither judicial estoppel nor the law-of-the-case doctrine barred the Worker’s change of position regarding his MMI status, as the Worker was not attempting to "play fast and loose" with the court, and the change of position did not prejudice the Employer who was aware the matter was still in active litigation and had not yet reached a final compensation order.