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 filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging a work-related accidental injury while employed by BJ Services Company. The Worker claimed that he had informed his employer of his injury through conversations with his supervisor and a district manager, and by providing a doctor's note recommending light duty due to a back condition. Despite these actions, the Worker's Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the Worker failed to provide legally sufficient and timely notice to the Employer, leading to a denial of benefits.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge, who denied Worker’s motion to reconsider the WCJ’s earlier order denying him benefits.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that he provided adequate timely notice to the Employer by informing his supervisor and district manager of his work-related injury and by submitting a doctor's note recommending light duty. Contended that these actions should have prompted the Employer to investigate the injury as a possible workers' compensation claim.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Testified that they were never notified that the Worker's injury might be work-related. Asserted that they would have been aware if such notice had been given, suggesting that the Worker's claim of providing notice was not credible.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker provided legally sufficient and timely notice to the Employer of his work-related accidental injury as required by NMSA 1978, § 52-1-29(A) (1990).

Disposition

• The order of the Workers' Compensation Judge denying Worker’s motion to reconsider the earlier order denying him benefits was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jonathan B. Sutin authoring the opinion, concurred by Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Timothy L. Garcia, found that there was sufficient evidence to support the WCJ's conclusion that the Employer had neither actual nor written notice of the accident until a date deemed too late for compliance with statutory requirements. The Court considered the Worker's deposition and trial testimony, noting discrepancies and the lack of explicit mention during the deposition that he had informed the Employer that his injury was work-related. The Court highlighted the Worker's failure to explicitly state in his deposition that he had notified the Employer's representative that his injury was work-related, which was a critical factor in the WCJ's credibility determination. The Court also noted that even if the Worker had conversations about his back condition and restrictions, it did not necessarily prove that he informed the Employer that the injury was work-related. The Court concluded that the Worker failed to meet the burden of proving that he provided notice in a timely fashion, affirming the WCJ's order.