As used in Chapter 52, Articles 1 through 6 NMSA 1978:
A. “controlled insurance plan” means a plan of insurance coverage that is established by an owner or principal contractor that requires participation by contractors or subcontractors who are engaged in the construction project, including coverage plans that are for a fixed term of coverage on a single construction site;
B. “director” means the director of the workers’ compensation administration;
C. “division” means the workers’ compensation administration;
D. “extra-hazardous employer” means an employer whose injury frequencies substantially exceed those that may reasonably be expected in that employer’s business or industry;
E. “rolling wrap-up or consolidated insurance plan” means coverage for an ongoing project or series of projects in which the common insurance program remains in place indefinitely and contracted work is simply added as it occurs under the control of one owner or principal contractor;
F. “workers’ compensation judge” means an individual appointed by the director to act as a workers’ compensation judge in the administration of the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978] or the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law [52-3-1 NMSA 1978];
G. “workman” or “workmen” means worker or workers;
H. “Workmen’s Compensation Act” means the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978]; and
I. “workmen’s compensation administration” or “administration” means the workers’ compensation administration.
HISTORY:
Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 26; 1987, ch. 235, § 2; 1989, ch. 263, § 2; 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 1; 2003, ch. 259, § 1; 2003, ch. 263, § 1; 2013, ch. 134, § 1.
Amendment Notes.
The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, added (D); redesignated former (D) through (H) as (E) through (I); and deleted “administratively attached to the labor department” at the end of (I).
Notes to Decisions
Employee.
—Generally.
To obtain benefits under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, 52-1-1.1 NMSA 1978 et seq., a workers’ compensation claimant has the burden of establishing that he is an employee rather than performing work as an independent contractor. Benavidez v. Serra Blanca Motors, 1998-NMCA-070, 125 N.M. 235, 959 P.2d 569, 1998 N.M. App. LEXIS 48 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998).
Under 52-1-16A NMSA 1978, a prison inmate participating in a work-release program was not a casual worker but an employee of a participating employer and thus entitled to a workers’ compensation benefits under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, although the inmate’s duties of cleaning and dismantling a building was not part of the employer’s regular business because the evidence did not support a finding that the inmate’s work was irregular, unpredictable, sporadic, and brief in as much as the inmate worked 40 hours a week for the employer for one month before the employee suffered a work-related injury and the work was not of an emergency or incidental nature but represented a planned project. Benavidez v. Serra Blanca Motors, 1998-NMCA-070, 125 N.M. 235, 959 P.2d 569, 1998 N.M. App. LEXIS 48 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998).
—Question of law or fact.
In determining whether a workers’ compensation claimant is an employee under 52-1-16A NMSA 1978 and, thus, entitled to benefits under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, the primary consideration is the right to control. Benavidez v. Serra Blanca Motors, 1998-NMCA-070, 125 N.M. 235, 959 P.2d 569, 1998 N.M. App. LEXIS 48 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998).
Under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, 52-1-1.1 NMSA 1978 et seq., whether a workers’ compensation claimant is an employee rather than an independent contractor is a question of law to be determined from the facts. Benavidez v. Serra Blanca Motors, 1998-NMCA-070, 125 N.M. 235, 959 P.2d 569, 1998 N.M. App. LEXIS 48 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998).
Minors.
Minors are included within the Workmen’s Compensation Act and come within the term “workman” or “employee.” Benson v. Export Equip. Corp., 1945-NMSC-044, 49 N.M. 356, 164 P.2d 380, 1945 N.M. LEXIS 430 (N.M. 1945).
Workman.
Substantial evidence existed to support a trial court’s finding that an employee who sought workmen’s compensation benefits for an accidental injury was not employed by the alleged employer at the time of the injury but was a “workman” because he was another company’s foreman at the time that the accidental injury occurred; therefore, under former 59-10-13.3, 1953 Comp., there was properly no recovery, and the judgment of dismissal as to the alleged employer and its insurance carrier was upheld. Creley v. Western Constructors, 1969-NMSC-004, 79 N.M. 727, 449 P.2d 329, 1969 N.M. LEXIS 1569 (N.M. 1969).