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

• A worker was terminated from the Bernalillo County Detention Center. Following the termination, the worker sought temporary total disability benefits (TTD) and modifier benefits.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The Workers' Compensation Judge concluded that the worker did not voluntarily remove himself from the workforce upon termination and was therefore entitled to temporary total disability benefits and modifier benefits.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellee: Argued that they did not voluntarily remove themselves from the workforce upon termination and were entitled to temporary total disability benefits and modifier benefits.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellants: Contended that the Workers' Compensation Judge erred in concluding the worker did not voluntarily remove himself from the workforce and in awarding temporary total disability benefits and modifier benefits. They also argued that the precedent set in Hawkins v. McDonald’s unfairly balanced interests against the employer.

Legal Issues

• Whether the worker voluntarily removed himself from the workforce upon termination from the Bernalillo County Detention Center.
• Whether the worker is entitled to temporary total disability benefits and modifier benefits.
• Whether the precedent set in Hawkins v. McDonald’s strikes an unfair balance against the employer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision that the worker did not voluntarily remove himself from the workforce and was entitled to temporary total disability benefits and modifier benefits.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The Court declined to reconsider the precedent set in Hawkins v. McDonald’s, applying its holding to affirm the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision. The Employer/Insurer's concession that if Hawkins adequately balances the interests of the worker and the employer, the worker would be entitled to permanent partial disability (PPD) and statute-based modifier benefits, was noted. However, the Court rejected the Employer/Insurer's argument that Hawkins strikes an unfair balance against the employer, thereby affirming the decision for the reasons stated in the second notice of proposed disposition.