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 worker suffered inhalation burns to his lungs during a 2019 incident at a Department of Transportation (DOT) concrete lab. Initially, the worker was placed in a light duty, temporary position in the Traffic Division, then moved to another temporary position within the Fleet Management Division. The worker was never offered a permanent position and elected to retire in May 2021 to receive PERA disability benefits. The worker's decision to retire was influenced by his health condition and the advice of his healthcare provider that moving to a lower elevation would improve his health (paras 4-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellee: Argued that his retirement was reasonable under the circumstances, including the lack of a permanent job offer from the employer and health advice from his healthcare provider. He also felt pushed to apply for PERA disability benefits due to past incidents and his active involvement in the union (paras 4-6).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellants: Asserted that substantial evidence does not support the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) findings and conclusions that the worker is entitled to statutory modifier-based benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s award of modifier-based permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits to the worker is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s ruling that the worker is entitled to statutory modifier-based benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (para 8).

Reasons

• Per BLACK, Pro Tem Judge (HANISEE, J., and BUSTAMANTE, J., retired, Sitting by Designation, concurring): The court applied the whole record standard of review and found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ’s determination that the worker’s decision to retire was reasonable. The court noted that the worker was not offered a permanent position by the employer and had conducted an independent job search without finding suitable employment. The decision to retire and accept PERA disability benefits, influenced by health considerations and the lack of employment opportunities within his restrictions, was deemed reasonable. The court found the case virtually indistinguishable from a precedent case, Cordova, affirming the worker's entitlement to modifier-based PPD benefits (paras 2-7).