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 Petitioner appealed the decision by the Secretary of the Department of Workforce Solutions regarding her failure to demonstrate good cause for not appearing at the appeals hearing on her overpayment of benefits (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge: Affirmed the decision by the Secretary of the Department of Workforce Solutions that the Petitioner did not demonstrate good cause for her failure to appear at the appeals hearing on her overpayment of benefits.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that she did not file a petition for writ of certiorari within thirty days of entry of the final order due to her belief in having the legal right to receive the disputed benefits (para 2).
• Respondents: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Petitioner's failure to file a petition for writ of certiorari within thirty days of entry of the final order precludes appellate review despite her belief in having the legal right to receive the disputed benefits.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the Petitioner's failure to follow proper procedural requirements for filing (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The court dismissed the appeal based on procedural grounds, specifically the Petitioner's failure to file a petition for writ of certiorari within the required thirty-day period following the entry of the final order by the district court. The court referenced Wakeland v. N.M. Dep’t of Workforce Solutions, which established that a notice of appeal cannot substitute for a petition for writ of certiorari and that a docketing statement could only be considered as such if filed within the statutory time limit. The court found no unusual circumstances to excuse the late filing and therefore could not consider the merits of the Petitioner's arguments (paras 1-2).