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

• On June 3, 2018, the Worker, a highway maintenance supervisor for the State of New Mexico Department of Transportation, was directing traffic on the shoulder of I-25 in Valencia County, New Mexico, when he was struck by a vehicle and thrown approximately forty feet. He sustained injuries to his head, brain, spine, hips, knees, and ankles and was transported to Presbyterian Hospital in Albuquerque for emergency care, followed by treatment at Concentra Medical Center. The Employer provided the Worker with total temporary disability (TTD) benefits for almost seven months post-injury (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the compensation order was void due to being entered over thirty days after the formal hearing, violating NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-7(B) (1993). Challenged the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) rating, the findings on residual physical capacity, the decision on initial health care provider (HCP) selection, denial of benefits for scheduled injuries to knees and ankles, and denial of reimbursement for medical cannabis (paras 1, 3-4).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) did not err in the findings and decisions challenged by the Worker, including the timing of the compensation order, the WPI rating, residual physical capacity, initial HCP selection, denial of benefits for scheduled injuries, and denial of medical cannabis reimbursement (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the compensation order is void due to being entered over thirty days after the formal hearing.
• Whether the WCJ erred in the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) rating.
• Whether the WCJ erred in findings concerning Worker’s residual physical capacity.
• Whether the WCJ erred in deciding that Worker made the initial selection of a health care provider (HCP).
• Whether the WCJ erred in denying benefits for scheduled injuries to Worker’s knees and ankles.
• Whether the WCJ erred in denying reimbursement for medical cannabis (paras 1, 3-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation order and the order on motion for reconsideration entered by the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), resolving contested issues and awarding workers’ compensation benefits for impairments arising from a 2018 work-related injury (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jane B. Yohalem, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Gerald E. Baca concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Preservation of Argument: The Worker failed to preserve the argument that the compensation order was void due to the delay in its entry, as he did not raise this issue before the WCJ (paras 7-8).
  Substantial Evidence and Workers’ Compensation Act Consistency: The WCJ’s findings on the WPI rating, residual physical capacity, initial HCP selection, denial of benefits for scheduled injuries, and denial of medical cannabis reimbursement were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court deferred to the WCJ’s credibility determinations and found no error in the application of law to facts (paras 9-29).