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

• Worker suffered an on-the-job cervical spine injury in October 2011 while employed by Luna Community College, which is insured by New Mexico Public School Insurance Authority. In July 2014 and October 2016, Worker's treating physician evaluated the injury, assigning impairment ratings of 12 percent and 29 percent, respectively. An independent medical examination (IME) conducted in January 2017 assigned a 7 percent impairment rating (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in selecting a 7 percent impairment rating for the cervical spine injury, contending it was not supported by substantial evidence. Also argued that the WCJ erred in utilizing the "combined values method" for determining overall impairment rating and abused discretion by granting an IME request on the day of trial (paras 3, 5).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Countered by stating the WCJ had discretion in selecting the impairment rating and supported the use of the "combined values method" as prescribed by the AMA Guides. They did not provide a specific argument against the timing of the IME request (paras 5-6, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ's finding of a 7 percent impairment for the cervical spine injury is supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the WCJ erred in utilizing the "combined values method" as prescribed by the AMA Guides to determine Worker’s overall impairment rating.
• Whether the WCJ abused his discretion in granting Employer/Insurer’s request for an IME on the day of trial (para 3).

Disposition

• The compensation order was reversed and remanded for the WCJ to enter amended or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the existing record, specifically providing detailed, reasoned analyses, explanations, and/or authorities supporting the selection of an impairment rating for Worker’s cervical spine injury and the choice to utilize the "combined values method" to calculate Worker’s overall impairment (para 10).

Reasons

• ATTREP, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Judge and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring): The Court found the WCJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law inadequate for effective appellate review due to a lack of explanation regarding the selection of the 7 percent impairment rating and the use of the "combined values method." The Court was unable to conduct a meaningful review of the WCJ’s compensation order because it lacked detailed reasoning or analysis for its decisions. The Court also noted that the Worker had abandoned any potentially outstanding claims of bad faith to proceed with the appeal, thus establishing the Court's jurisdiction. The Court declined to review the WCJ’s grant of an IME on the day of trial due to Worker's failure to adequately develop the argument or cite relevant authority (paras 1-11).