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, Dolores Sanchez, sustained a back injury on August 7, 2006, while employed. The injury's causal relation to her work and the extent of her physical capacity post-injury were contested. The Worker argued that her T12-L1 back injury was work-related and that her residual physical capacity was limited to sedentary activity, contrary to the findings that not all her injuries were work-related and her capacity was light.

Procedural History

• Appeal from Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The compensation order provided some relief to the Worker but found not all injuries were work-related and classified the Worker’s residual physical capacity as light rather than sedentary.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the T12-L1 back injury was causally related to the work injury sustained on August 7, 2006, and that her residual physical capacity should be classified as sedentary.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that the Worker's T12-L1 back injury was not causally related to the work accident and supported the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) classification of the Worker’s residual physical capacity as light.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's T12-L1 back injury was causally related to her work injury on August 7, 2006.
• Whether the Worker's residual physical capacity should be classified as sedentary rather than light.
• Whether the Employer is responsible for payment of the Worker's second independent medical examination (IME).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision that not all of the Worker's injuries were work-related, her residual physical capacity was light, and the Employer was not responsible for the payment of the second IME.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's decision that the Worker's T12-L1 back injury was not causally related to her work accident, based on the medical records and the conflicting opinions of Drs. Patton and Schultz. The WCJ's prerogative to assess credibility and weigh evidence was emphasized, particularly in choosing to rely on Dr. Schultz's opinion over Dr. Patton's, despite claims of incomplete information (para [RP Vol. II/213-15, 232]).
  Regarding the Worker's residual physical capacity, the court supported the WCJ's reliance on a functional capacity evaluation from July 23, 2009, which demonstrated the Worker's lifting tolerance at a light level. The court acknowledged the Worker's reliance on her treating physician's contrary opinion but upheld the WCJ's discretion in weighing the evidence (para [RP Vol. II/216, 232]).
  On the issue of the second IME's payment, the court affirmed the WCJ's ruling that the Employer was not responsible because the IME was neither agreed upon by the parties nor authorized by the WCJ, as required by NMSA 1978, § 52-1-51(A) (2005) (para [RP Vol. II/217, 231]).
  The court also noted the Worker did not contest the WCJ’s determination of her date of medical maximum improvement (MMI) as August 4, 2009, and affirmed this determination without further discussion (para [RP Vol. II/215, 232]).