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, employed by St. Vincent Hospital and insured by Hospital Services Corporation, suffered two separate workplace injuries. The Employer compensated the Worker for the first injury but sought to credit this compensation against benefits due for the second injury. The Worker also filed motions for reconsideration and clarification regarding the compensation order, which led to disputes over the timeliness and preservation of certain claims and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Worker's claims.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, David L. Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Awarded compensation to Worker for injuries sustained while employed by St. Vincent Hospital, which was appealed by the Employer.

Parties' Submissions

• Employer: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by not crediting the Employer for benefits paid for an initial injury against benefits due for a second injury. Contended that the WCJ erred in failing to terminate Worker’s benefits due to Worker’s refusal to return to work after Employer offered modified employment. Also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment in favor of the Worker.
• Worker (N/A): The specific arguments made by the Worker are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Employer is entitled to a credit for benefits paid for an initial injury against benefits due for a second injury.
• Whether the WCJ erred in failing to terminate Worker’s benefits due to Worker’s alleged refusal to return to work after an offer of modified employment.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment in favor of the Worker.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order awarding compensation to the Worker.

Reasons

• The Court found that the Employer’s arguments regarding the credit for benefits paid for an initial injury against benefits due for a second injury were not persuasive, as the Employer failed to make its claim of error clear or to demonstrate that its arguments were supported by evidence in the record (paras 2-4).
  The Court concluded that the issue regarding the Worker’s alleged refusal to return to work after an offer of modified employment was not properly preserved for appeal, as the Employer did not demonstrate that it had actually offered Worker modified employment (para 6).
  The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment in favor of the Worker, stating that credibility determinations are for the WCJ to make and do not provide a basis for reversal on appeal (para 7).
  The Court denied Employer’s motion to amend the docketing statement for the second appeal, finding that none of the issues sought to be added were viable for review (paras 8-14).