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

• In 2004, an employee of Greg Gallegos, doing business as Monster Construction & Roofing, was injured on the job and filed a claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) determined the employee was eligible for benefits, but Gallegos did not have the required workers’ compensation insurance. Consequently, the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) paid for the employee's medical bills and indemnity payments. The UEF then sought reimbursement from Gallegos, leading to a supplementary compensation order by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) in 2005, which Gallegos did not comply with. The UEF filed a petition in 2006 to enforce this order, which was dismissed twice for lack of prosecution, the last time in 2008. Nearly seven years later, in 2015, the UEF attempted to reinstate the petition (paras 2-9).

Procedural History

• District Court, March 13, 2007: Dismissed the UEF's 2006 Petition for lack of prosecution without prejudice, later reinstated on March 29, 2007, after the UEF moved for reinstatement (para 6).
• District Court, April 24, 2008: Again dismissed the UEF's 2006 Petition for lack of prosecution without prejudice, and the UEF did not move to renew its collection effort against Respondent in district court (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (UEF): Argued that it demonstrated "good cause" for reinstatement of the 2006 Petition and that the district court, which denied the UEF’s motion based on its "tardiness," failed to apply the correct standard of review. Additionally, the UEF relied on the Act’s enforcement provision, which mandates entry of judgment by the district court upon petition by the WCA director, as well as the absence of an applicable statute of limitations restricting the time within which the UEF may enforce an order of reimbursement issued by the WCA (paras 13-14).
• Respondent-Appellee (Gallegos): Filed a pro se answer to the UEF’s 2015 Motion to Reinstate denying entirely any liability to the UEF, stating the case was dismissed in 2005-6 and alleging the worker fabricated the substance of the case to establish employment (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the UEF’s 2015 Motion to Reinstate the 2006 Petition (para 13).
• Whether the district court’s denial of the UEF’s 2015 Motion to Reinstate its 2006 Petition was contrary to law and precluded the possibility of a new petition under Section 52-5-10(B) (para 24).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to deny the UEF’s 2015 Motion to Reinstate the 2006 Petition was affirmed (para 41).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the UEF’s 2015 Motion to Reinstate. The UEF's failure to file a timely motion to reinstate within the thirty-day window required by Rule 1-041(E)(2) meant that the district court correctly denied the motion based on "tardiness." The court also found that Section 52-5-10(B) did not compel the district court to grant the UEF’s motion to reinstate its 2006 Petition, as no valid petition was pending before the district court when it considered the 2015 Motion to Reinstate. The court concluded that nothing prevented the UEF from filing a new petition for entry of judgment against Gallegos, as there was no statute of limitations or other legal barrier to doing so (paras 14-39).