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 respiratory therapist employed by the University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH) experienced an allergic reaction to a perfume-like scent emanating from a co-worker, despite an internal policy against strong scents at the workplace. The exposure led to significant health issues for the worker, including an asthma attack, upper respiratory infection, and allergies, necessitating emergency room treatment and subsequent medical care (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Leonard J. Padilla, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The workers' compensation judge determined that the worker's allergic reaction was related to and occurred within the course and scope of his employment, awarding the worker reasonable and necessary medical care for his work-related injuries (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellee: Argued that the allergic reaction to a co-worker’s perfume-like scent was work-related, arising out of, and in the course and scope of his employment. The worker sought to introduce medical records and testimony from Drs. Martinez and Boyd to establish causation between the work-related exposure and the allergic reaction (paras 9-10, 14).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellants: Contended that the medical testimony from Drs. Martinez and Boyd was inadmissible, arguing these physicians were not authorized healthcare providers under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Additionally, the employer disputed the causal connection between the worker's injuries and his employment, suggesting the worker's exposure to perfume did not constitute a risk peculiar to his employment (paras 8, 12-13, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the testimony of Drs. Martinez and Boyd was admissible under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
• Whether the worker's allergic reaction to a perfume-like scent arose out of and occurred within the course and scope of his employment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the workers' compensation judge's determination that the worker's allergic reaction arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment and that the medical testimony from Drs. Martinez and Boyd was admissible (para 21).

Reasons

• Per BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found substantial evidence supported the workers' compensation judge's conclusion that Drs. Martinez and Boyd were authorized healthcare providers, based on a referral from an authorized healthcare provider at UNMH. This referral made their testimony admissible under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court also held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the worker's allergic reaction was causally related to and arose out of his employment. The Court emphasized that the worker's exposure to the strong scent, in a confined space while performing his duties, constituted a risk peculiar to his work environment, especially given the employer's internal policy against strong scents. The Court rejected the employer's argument that the worker's risk of exposure to perfume was not peculiar to his employment, noting the specific circumstances and policies at the workplace that made the risk incident to the worker's employment (paras 9-20).