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 injured his left ankle in 2014 while employed as a laborer. Following surgery and several medical consultations, he believed he might have complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), but was not diagnosed with it by multiple medical professionals. Instead, he was diagnosed with left ankle sprain, ongoing pain, and later, neuropathy by different doctors. His condition led to a dispute over the nature of his injury and the appropriate compensation under workers' compensation law. The Worker's request for further medical evaluation by a specific doctor was denied by the insurance adjuster, leading to additional contention in the case (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that he suffered from a separate and distinct nonscheduled injury to his nervous system, which should entitle him to greater permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. Additionally, contended that the denial to call the insurance adjuster as a witness at trial was erroneous (para 8).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that substantial evidence supported the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) finding that the Worker’s injury was limited to his left ankle, and thus, the Worker was not entitled to greater PPD benefits. They also supported the WCJ's decision to quash the subpoena for the insurance adjuster's testimony at trial (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker suffered from a separate and distinct nonscheduled injury to his nervous system, entitling him to greater PPD benefits under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-42.
• Whether the WCJ erred by denying the Worker’s request to call the insurance adjuster as a witness at trial (para 8).

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to limit the Worker’s PPD benefits to scheduled injury benefits and to deny the Worker’s request to call the insurance adjuster as a witness at trial was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's decision that the Worker's injury was limited to his left ankle and did not constitute a separate and distinct injury to a nonscheduled body part. The Court reviewed the medical evidence and testimonies, including the IME panel's findings and the depositions of treating doctors, which did not support a diagnosis of CRPS or a separate injury to the nervous system. The Court also held that the WCJ did not abuse his discretion in quashing the subpoena for the insurance adjuster's testimony, as it was deemed irrelevant to the issues at trial. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence and the WCJ's role in resolving conflicts in evidence, underscoring that the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the WCJ (paras 9-21).