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 was concurrently employed by Lowe's Company, Inc. (Employer) and the Department of Defense (DOD) when he suffered an injury with the Employer on May 11, 2018. The Worker's pre-injury average weekly wage (AWW) from both employers was stipulated to be $1,328.43. After the injury, the Worker returned to work for the DOD at his pre-injury wage but earned inconsistent wages from the Employer until being laid off. The Worker reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on January 24, 2019, and sought temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from June 27, 2018, until MMI (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Worker's motion for partial summary judgment and ordered that the Worker was entitled to TTD benefits at a rate of $796.96 for weeks before MMI when he was not earning his pre-injury AWW with either Employer or DOD. This decision was incorporated into the WCJ's compensation order filed on December 5, 2019 (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-25.1(B) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, he was entitled to TTD benefits at the maximum compensation rate for the weeks disputed because the Employer did not offer work at his pre-injury wage (paras 1, 13-14).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that the Worker's interpretation of Section 52-1-25.1(B) would require ignoring the wages the Worker continued to earn post-injury from the DOD, leading to an unfair result. They supported the WCJ's application of Section 52-1-25.1(C), allowing benefits of two-thirds of the difference between the Worker's pre-injury wage and post-injury wage (paras 11, 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge correctly applied Section 52-1-25.1(C) to the dates at issue instead of Section 52-1-25.1(B) to the Worker’s concurrent employment circumstances (para 2).
• Whether the Worker's appeal is reviewable despite not filing an interlocutory appeal after the issuance of the order on the Worker's motion for partial summary judgment (paras 6-10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ's finding that Section 52-1-25.1(B) does not apply for the weeks disputed, and therefore, the Worker was not entitled to TTD benefits at the maximum compensation rate for those weeks. The Court also affirmed the WCJ's application of Section 52-1-25.1(C), allowing benefits of two-thirds of the difference between the Worker's pre-injury wage and post-injury wage (para 18).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Gerald E. Baca, Megan P. Duffy, and Zachary A. Ives concurring, held that the Worker's interpretation of Section 52-1-25.1(B) would create an internal inconsistency within the statute, as it would require "pre-injury wage" to have two different meanings. The Court agreed with the WCJ that Section 52-1-25.1(B) was inapplicable under the circumstances and that the WCJ did not err in applying Section 52-1-25.1(C). The Court also determined that the appeal was properly before it, as the compensation order was a final, appealable order that incorporated by reference the order on the Worker's motion for partial summary judgment, which did not dispose of all claims in the case (paras 6-17).