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 claim with the Workers' Compensation Administration (WCA) against his employer, the Casino, alleging injury while working. Following a trial, the Worker's claim was successful, leading to his gaming license being suspended and subsequently revoked by the Pueblo of Pojoaque Gaming Commission (PPGC), resulting in his termination. The Worker then filed a complaint against the Casino and related entities, alleging bad faith, unfair claims processing, and retaliation due to his initial claim. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found in favor of the Worker, awarding damages and penalties against the Casino for bad faith and retaliation but concluded it could not order the Casino to rehire the Worker due to licensing issues (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Martinez v. Cities of Gold Casino (Martinez I), 2009-NMCA-087: Held that the WCJ had authority to order the Casino to rehire the Worker, affirmed the adequacy of remedies under the Worker’s Compensation Act, and upheld the constitutionality of the cap on attorney fees.
• Certiorari Denied, September 16, 2011, No. 33,113; Certiorari Denied, September 20, 2011, No. 33,108.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the WCJ's decision that he could not be rehired by the Casino was incorrect, requested pre- and post-judgment interest on bad faith awards and fees, and sought allowance for the payment of attorney fees due to the employer's bad faith actions (para 11).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that the Worker could not be rehired due to the lack of a gaming license, which was under the authority of PPGC, not subject to the jurisdiction of the WCA. They also argued against the award of pre- and post-judgment interest and maintained that the attorney fees provisions in the Act were constitutional and not ambiguous (paras 9-10, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in deciding that the Worker could not be rehired by the Casino.
• Whether the Worker is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest on the bad faith awards and fees.
• Whether the payment of attorney fees should be allowed when an employer has acted in bad faith.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the WCJ's decision regarding the rehire of the Worker and remanded with instructions to order the Casino to rehire the Worker.
• The Court affirmed the WCJ's denial of pre-judgment interest but reversed the denial of post-judgment interest, awarding it at a rate of fifteen percent.
• The Court affirmed the WCJ's decision on the issue of attorney fees (paras 26-27).

Reasons

• The Court found that the WCJ did not follow the appellate court's mandate to order the Casino to rehire the Worker, which was erroneous as a matter of law. The Court also determined that post-judgment interest was mandatory due to the WCJ's findings of bad faith, fraud, malice, oppression, or willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of the Worker's rights by the Casino. However, the Court upheld the WCJ's decision on pre-judgment interest and attorney fees, citing discretion and precedent, respectively (paras 12-25).