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 complaint seeking benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act for injuries sustained while working for the Employer, who denied some of the Worker's injuries' compensability and rejected the Worker's three offers of judgment. The parties eventually reached a lump sum settlement, under which the Employer agreed to pay the Worker's outstanding medical bills and a lump sum, in exchange for the Worker waiving all rights under the Act related to his claim. The Worker then requested that the Employer pay one hundred percent of his attorney fees, arguing he received more in the compensation order than offered in his offers of judgment, which the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the WCJ erred by concluding he failed to demonstrate entitlement to fee shifting under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(F)(4) (2013), contending he received more in the compensation order than he offered in his offers of judgment (para 1).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: The specific arguments of the Employer/Insurer-Appellees are not detailed in the provided text, but it is implied they opposed the Worker's request for one hundred percent payment of his attorney fees and disputed the Worker's interpretation of the fee shifting provision (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in ruling the fee shifting provision of Section 52-1-54(F)(4) does not apply to the Worker's case (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge's order denying the Worker's request for one hundred percent payment of his attorney fees (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found that the Worker did not demonstrate entitlement to fee shifting. The Court identified three requirements for fee shifting, focusing on whether the Worker's offers of judgment were for an amount less than that awarded in the compensation order. The Court agreed with the WCJ's rationale that the value of the Worker's future medical benefits, reserved in the offers of judgment, were speculative and could not be compared with the compensation order, which earmarked $14,500 for such benefits. The Court also noted that the Worker did not challenge the WCJ's finding regarding the speculative nature of future medical benefits and did not provide legal authority to support limiting the analysis to exclude future benefits. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Worker failed to establish his offers of judgment were for amounts less than the compensation order’s award, justifying the denial of fee shifting (paras 5-9).