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 filed an application seeking attorney fees related to a workers' compensation claim for a work-related right knee injury and secondary right knee pain. The Worker had made a pretrial offer of judgment, which included payment of outstanding medical bills by the Employer/Insurer and authorization for ongoing treatment for the knee injury and secondary pain.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge, who denied the Worker's application for attorney fees.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the pretrial offer of judgment was less than the amount awarded by the compensation order, thereby entitling her to have all of her attorney fees paid by the Employer pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54 (2013).
• Defendant-Appellees: Contested the Worker's entitlement to attorney fees, arguing that the final compensation order did not exceed the Worker's pretrial offer in terms of payment for outstanding medical bills and authorization for ongoing treatment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker’s pretrial offer of judgment was less than the amount awarded by the compensation order, thereby entitling her to have all of her attorney fees paid by the Employer under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54 (2013).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, thereby entitling the Worker to the attorney fees award at issue in this appeal.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that the Worker's pretrial offer of judgment, which sought payment of outstanding medical bills for treatment related to the work-related right knee injury and secondary right knee pain, as well as authorization for ongoing treatment, was indeed less than the compensation awarded by the final order. The Employer's arguments, focusing on treatments and claims outside the scope of the Worker's offer of judgment, failed to demonstrate that the Worker sought unawarded benefits in her offer of judgment. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 52-1-54(F)(4) is to encourage settlement, and the comparison should be made between the final compensation order and the Worker's written offer of judgment, not to any prior or subsequent demands, offers, or claims. The Court concluded that the Worker's offer was less than the compensation order entered, entitling her to the attorney fees award pursuant to Section 52-1-54(F)(4). The case was remanded for the entry of an appropriate order regarding attorney fees (paras 1-9).