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 a petition for a partial lump sum payment for debts, which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) approved, requiring the Employer/Insurer to pay a lump sum to the Social Security Administration. There was a delay in the Employer/Insurer receiving the order due to the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) not sending out orders at that time. The Worker's attorney had to forward the order to the Employer/Insurer's attorney to request payment. Despite multiple follow-ups, the Employer/Insurer did not respond until the day of the hearing on the Worker's application to enforce the order, where they issued the check with ten percent interest dating back to the date the Lump Sum Order was filed (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Employer/Insurer engaged in unfair claims processing by delaying the payment of the lump sum order and requested sanctions, a ten percent penalty payable directly to the Worker, 8.75 percent post-judgment interest from the date of the initial request for payment to the date the check is delivered, and attorney’s fees of $750.00 to be paid entirely by Employer/Insurer (paras 3, 5).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Offered an explanation for the delay in payment, stating that the delay was due to verifying that no double payments were made and that the check was issued on the day of the hearing with ten percent interest dating back to the filing date of the Lump Sum Order. They did not file a written response to the Worker's application or respond to it prior to the hearing (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Employer/Insurer engaged in unfair claims processing by delaying the payment of the lump sum order to the Worker.
• Whether the Worker is entitled to post-judgment interest at a rate of fifteen percent under NMSA 1978, Section 56-8-4(A)(2) instead of ten percent.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge's decision to deny the Worker's request for sanctions against the Employer/Insurer for unfair claim-processing practices was affirmed.
• The award of ten percent post-judgment interest was upheld, and the request for fifteen percent was denied due to lack of preservation of the issue for appeal (paras 21-22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Stephen G. French and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, found that the Worker preserved her unfair claims processing claim for appellate review by specifically requesting a ruling on it and memorializing the WCJ’s decision in a written order. The Court determined that the WCJ did not err in finding no unfair claims processing, as the delay was not the fault of the Employer/Insurer and was due to the WCA not mailing out orders at the time. The Court also found that the Employer/Insurer's attorney was diligently trying to resolve the matter and that the delay in payment was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The Court did not endorse the Employer/Insurer's failure to respond to inquiries but found no unfair claims processing based on the limited record before them. The issue of post-judgment interest was not preserved for appeal as the Worker did not object to the ten percent rate awarded by the WCJ or request the fifteen percent rate during the hearing (paras 7-21).