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-Respondent, while employed as a milker and pusher at the Employer-Petitioner's dairy, alleges to have injured his shoulder and knee after being thrown by a bull on November 22, 2014. Following the incident, the Worker-Respondent filed a complaint seeking workers' compensation on January 2, 2015 (para 3).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals, October 28, 2015: Reversed the WCJ’s decision to grant Employer-Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment based on the Court of Appeals’s decision in Rodriguez I (para 4).
• Worker’s Compensation Judge (WCJ), May 28, 2015: Granted Employer-Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, claiming the Worker-Respondent’s claim was barred by the farm and ranch laborer exclusion (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Employer-Petitioner: Argued that the Worker-Respondent’s claim was barred by the farm and ranch laborer exclusion, leading to a motion for summary judgment (para 3).
• Worker-Respondent: Filed a complaint seeking workers' compensation for injuries sustained while employed, later appealing the WCJ's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Employer-Petitioner (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the farm and ranch laborer exclusion applies to the Worker-Respondent’s claim, barring him from receiving workers' compensation for injuries sustained while employed (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals is reversed, and the summary judgment entered by the WCJ in favor of Milk-N-Atural is affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• Per EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice (CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, BARBARA J. Vigil, Justice, JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice concurring): The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted the Employer-Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari and held it in abeyance pending the outcome of Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy (Rodriguez II). Following the decision in Rodriguez II, which held the farm and ranch laborer exclusion unconstitutional but applied its holding prospectively, the Court determined that the Worker-Respondent's injury, having manifested before the mandate in Rodriguez II, did not benefit from the ruling. Consequently, the farm and ranch laborer exclusion applied to the Worker-Respondent's claim, and the WCJ was correct in granting summary judgment to the Employer-Petitioner (paras 1-5).