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

• A registered nurse employed by Eastern New Mexico Medical Center sustained injuries after slipping on a wet floor at work. Despite the employer's policy to use "wet floor" signs, none were posted near the mopped floor at the time of the incident. The nurse sought a 10% increase in benefits, arguing that the absence of a "wet floor" sign constituted a failure to supply a necessary safety device (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Judge: Found "wet floor" signs to be safety devices but concluded the employer provided all appropriate safety devices, denying the 10% increase in benefits (para 7).
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed the WCJ's decision, relying on Jaramillo v. Anaconda Co., which held that the failure to properly employ a provided safety device by a fellow employee does not warrant a 10% increase in benefits (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Petitioner: Argued that "wet floor" signs are safety devices and that the employer's failure to post such signs at the time of the accident entitles her to a 10% increase in benefits (para 9).
• Employer/Insurer-Respondents: Denied the allegation that the absence of "wet floor" signs constituted a failure to supply a safety device, demanding strict proof and maintaining that they had provided all necessary safety devices (paras 3, 23).

Legal Issues

• Whether a "wet floor" sign constitutes a safety device under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
• Whether the nurse is entitled to a 10% increase in benefits due to the employer's failure to post a "wet floor" sign at the time of the accident.
• Whether Section 52-5-1 of the Act violates the doctrine of separation of powers (paras 9, 38).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that a "wet floor" sign is a safety device and that the nurse is entitled to a 10% increase in benefits due to the employer's failure to supply this safety device at the time of the accident. Additionally, the Court found that Section 52-5-1 does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers (paras 45-46).

Reasons

• Per Petra Jimenez Maes, J. (Vigil, C.J., Bosson, Chávez, and Daniels, JJ., concurring):
  The Court determined that "wet floor" signs meet the criteria of a safety device as they are tangible, specific, and prevent a particular danger. The Court also found that these signs were in general use at the employer's facility (paras 13-20).
  The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' reliance on Jaramillo, distinguishing the present case by the complete absence of a "wet floor" sign, which constituted a failure to supply a necessary safety device. The Court emphasized the employer's responsibility to ensure safety devices are not only provided but also properly employed (paras 28-33).
  The Court rejected the argument that Section 52-5-1, which states the Workers’ Compensation Act is not to be given a broad liberal construction, violates the doctrine of separation of powers. It was determined that the section does not prevent the application of liberal construction as one of many tools for interpreting legislation (paras 38-44).