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-Appellant was injured due to the absence of a "wet floor" sign at the place of her injury. The Employer/Insurer-Appellees had provided wet floor signs for use by housekeeping staff, but the signs were not deployed as they should have been at the time of the Worker's injury.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The Workers' Compensation order provided benefits to the Worker but denied a ten percent safety device penalty.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued for a 10% increase in benefits due to Employer’s failure to provide a safety device, specifically, a “wet floor” sign at the place of her injury.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker is entitled to a 10% increase in benefits due to the Employer's failure to provide a safety device, namely a "wet floor" sign, at the place of her injury.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation order providing benefits but denying a ten percent safety device penalty was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Employer did provide wet floor signs for use, but they were not deployed at the time of the Worker's injury. The Court relied on the precedent set in Jaramillo v. Anaconda Co., which determined that the "failure to provide" language in Section 52-1-10(B) did not apply when a safety device is provided by an employer but not properly employed by a coworker. The Worker's reliance on Martinez v. Zia Co. and Dickerson v. Farmer’s Elec. Coop. was deemed misplaced as those cases involved defective safety devices, which was not the situation in the present case. The Court also noted that there were no relevant changes to NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-8(B) (1989), that would affect the application of Jaramillo to this case (paras 2-6).