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 notice of appeal/docketing statement, indicating a history of filing appeals "twice a year for the past three years" in a worker's compensation case against Kohl’s and AIG. The last item in the record was this Court's mandate and memorandum opinion issued, affirming a compensation order and an order denying the Worker's second motion for reconsideration (Informal DS, p. 27; [RP 154, 166, 169, 194, 195]).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, February 21, 2012: Affirmed the March 17, 2011 compensation order and the April 7, 2011 order denying Worker’s second motion for reconsideration ([RP 154, 166, 169, 194, 195]).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Filed multiple appeals over the years, raising the same issues and concerns previously addressed by the Court ([Informal DS, p. 27]).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees (N/A): Arguments cannot be reliably ascertained from the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's notice of appeal/docketing statement can be construed as an untimely motion for rehearing from the Court's February 21, 2012, opinion.
• Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine bars the Worker's present notice of appeal/docketing statement due to the issues raised being the same as those in the previous appeal.

Disposition

• The Court dismissed the Worker's present appeal.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court proposed to dismiss the appeal for being an untimely motion for rehearing and due to the law-of-the-case doctrine, as the Worker raised the same issues previously decided upon. The Worker did not address the reasons for dismissal discussed in the calendar notice nor provided new facts or authorities to persuade the Court otherwise. The repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact ([Informal DS, p. 27]; [RP 154, 166, 169, 194, 195]; [187, 192]).