AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Chapter 52 - Workers' Compensation - cited by 2,010 documents

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

  • The case involves the State of New Mexico Uninsured Employers’ Fund seeking to enforce a Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) judgment against Greg Gallegos, who was doing business as Monster Construction & Roofing. The WCA had entered a supplemental compensation order of default against Gallegos, which the petitioner sought to enforce through a district court petition (para 2).

Procedural History

  • WCA, March 15, 2017: Entered a supplemental compensation order of default against Respondent.
  • District Court of Bernalillo County, August 17, 2017: Entered a default judgment to enforce the WCA’s order.

Parties' Submissions

  • Petitioner-Appellee (State of New Mexico Uninsured Employers’ Fund): Filed a petition in the district court to enforce the WCA’s order pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-10(B) (1990).
  • Respondent-Appellant (Greg Gallegos): Argued that the Petitioner took too long to prosecute the case against him (para 4).

Legal Issues

  • Whether the district court erred in entering a default judgment to enforce the WCA’s order against the Respondent.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order of default judgment to enforce the WCA’s judgment (para 5).

Reasons

  • Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (with J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition suggesting affirmation of the district court's order due to the expiration of the time for appealing the WCA order and the Respondent's failure to demonstrate how the district court erred with respect to the order of enforcement. Despite the Respondent's argument that the Petitioner delayed in prosecuting the case, the Court noted that the appeal could not serve as a mechanism to challenge the WCA's order indirectly. The appellate courts presume the correctness of the trial court's decision, placing the burden on the appellant to demonstrate error. The Respondent's argument was deemed insufficient to overturn the district court's enforcement order (paras 3-5).
 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.