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-Appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that her current medical issues were related to a spider or insect bite she suffered many years prior. Initially, she received temporary total disability benefits until these ceased in June 2007. Many years after her first claim was resolved, she renewed her claim for benefits, asserting that her ongoing medical problems were a direct result of the earlier bite.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that her current medical issues are related to a spider or insect bite suffered many years ago and that her medical records substantiate her medical problems resulting from the bite. Additionally, she mentioned her inability to read and write due to dyslexia.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker-Appellant was required to present expert medical testimony at trial to show that her current medical issues are related to the spider or insect bite she suffered many years ago.
• Whether the Worker-Appellant's dyslexia is relevant to her claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the denial of the Worker-Appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring:
  The court found that the Worker-Appellant failed to present expert medical testimony at trial to support her claim that her current medical issues are related to the spider or insect bite she suffered many years prior, as required by NMSA 1978, § 52-1-28(B) (1987) (para 2). Despite evidence of initial injuries and temporary total disability benefits received until June 2007, the Worker-Appellant's renewal of her claim many years later necessitated expert medical testimony to link her current medical issues to the bite, which she did not provide (para 2).
  Furthermore, the court determined that the Worker-Appellant's dyslexia, while acknowledged, is unrelated to her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Workers' compensation benefits are designed to compensate for disabilities arising from work-related injuries, not for non-work-related disabilities such as dyslexia, as per NMSA 1978, § 52-1-9 (1973) (para 3).
  Lastly, the court noted that material attached to the Worker-Appellant's memorandum in opposition with duct tape was not considered, as it was not properly presented while the case remained on the summary calendar (para 4).