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 case involves a Worker who was awarded benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) based on a maximum medical improvement (MMI) date of December 7, 2016. The Worker also sought attorney fees, with the WCA ordering the fees to be split fifty percent by the Worker and fifty percent by the Employer/Insurer.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Insurer: Did not file a memorandum in opposition to the court's proposed summary affirmance regarding the WCA’s compensation order determining the date Worker reached MMI.
• Worker: Opposed the WCA's decision on attorney fees, arguing that the Employer should pay one hundred percent of the attorney fees pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(F) (2013), because the compensation order awarded the Worker a larger recovery for temporary total disability (TTD) than was proposed to the Employer in the Worker's offer of judgment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCA erred in requiring the Worker and Employer to each pay fifty percent of the Worker's attorney fees.
• Whether the Worker's offer of judgment on TTD benefits, which did not address permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits or other benefits, was sufficient to trigger the fee-shifting provision under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(F) (2013).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the WCA’s compensation order determining the date Worker reached MMI.
• The court also affirmed the WCA's award and apportionment of attorney fees, requiring them to be paid fifty percent by the Worker and fifty percent by the Employer.

Reasons

• Judges Timothy L. Garcia, Michael E. Vigil, and J. Miles Hanisee concurred in the decision. The court found that the Employer's failure to file a memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary affirmance regarding the MMI date led to the issue being deemed abandoned. Regarding the attorney fees, the court noted that the Worker's offer of judgment was insufficient for fee-shifting because it did not address all contested issues, specifically PPD benefits, which were a critical issue in the case. The court also rejected the Worker's argument that he was prevented from making a complete offer of judgment that included PPD benefits due to the Employer's refusal to pay for a second impairment assessment. The court concluded that the Worker could have made a complete offer based on the information available at the time, thus, the WCA's decision on attorney fees was affirmed (paras 1-5).