The state and each county, municipality, school district, drainage, irrigation or conservancy district, public institution and administrative board thereof employing workers, every charitable organization employing workers and every private person, firm or corporation engaged in carrying on for the purpose of business or trade within this state, and which employs three or more workers, except as provided in Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978, shall become liable to and shall pay to any such worker injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and, in case of his death being occasioned thereby, to such person as may be authorized by the director or appointed by a court to receive the same for the benefit of his dependents, compensation in the manner and amount at the times required in the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978].
HISTORY:
Laws 1929, ch. 113, § 2; C.S. 1929, § 156-102; Laws 1933, ch. 178, § 1; 1937, ch. 92, § 1; 1941 Comp., § 57-902; 1953 59-10-2; Laws 1971, ch. 261, § 1; 1973, ch. 240, § 1; 1975, ch. 284, § 1; 1987, ch. 235, § 3; 2003, ch. 259, § 2.
Notes to Decisions
Accident.
Workers’ compensation benefits should have been awarded to a worker after he suffered a jaw injury due to a supervisor punching him in the face because this constituted an accidental injury even though the supervisor acted intentionally. Griego v. Patriot Erectors, Inc., 2007-NMCA-080, 141 N.M. 844, 161 P.3d 889, 2007 N.M. App. LEXIS 55 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 141 N.M. 569, 158 P.3d 459, 2007 N.M. LEXIS 344 (N.M. 2007).
Applicability.
Prison guard who was injured during a prison riot could not recover against the penitentiary under former § 45-101, 1941 Comp., and the Workmen’s Compensation Statutes, former § 57-901 to § 57-931, 1941 Comp. (now 52-1-1 NMSA 1978), where the penitentiary took no step to comply with the Act and did not file a notice in writing of its election not to accept the provisions of the Act, because the state did not expressly consent to be sued. Day v. Penitentiary of New Mexico, 1954-NMSC-064, 58 N.M. 391, 271 P.2d 831, 1954 N.M. LEXIS 1139 (N.M. 1954).
Deviation.
Where an employee was furnished with a truck by his employer and was required to drive it home incidental to his work, but the employee stopped at a bar for nearly five hours on his way home from work and was then killed when the truck went out of control, the record demonstrated a major deviation in the course of a business trip and compelled the conclusion that the employee had abandoned his employment and was merely pursuing his own pleasure; thus, the employee’s widow and minor child were not entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits because the accident, which resulted in the employee’s death, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as a matter of law. Carter v. Burn Constr. Co., 1973-NMCA-156, 85 N.M. 27, 508 P.2d 1324, 1973 N.M. App. LEXIS 660 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 85 N.M. 5, 508 P.2d 1302, 1973 N.M. LEXIS 1327 (N.M. 1973).
Employees.
All workers employed by a private employer engaged in carrying on for the purpose of business or trade within the state of New Mexico, wherever employed, must be considered in determining whether the employer is subject to the act. Hammonds v. Freymiller Trucking, 1993-NMCA-030, 115 N.M. 364, 851 P.2d 486, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 21 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).
Employer which employed only one employee in the state of New Mexico, but which employed more than three workers in total, was subject to the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978] for injuries to a truck driver who lived and was injured in New Mexico. Hammonds v. Freymiller Trucking, 1993-NMCA-030, 115 N.M. 364, 851 P.2d 486, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 21 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).
Workers’ compensation benefits were properly denied to a worker where his employer did not regularly employ more than three employees, as required by 52-1-2 NMSA 1978, because the employer was not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act; although 52-1-7E NMSA 1978 provided that those who elected not to be covered under the Act were nonetheless to be counted in determining whether an employer came within the Act, it did not apply because the corporate owners-officers of a tile company, were not 52-1-7F NMSA 1978 employees. Garcia v. Watson Tile Works, 1990-NMCA-126, 111 N.M. 209, 803 P.2d 1114, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 139 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
Where an employer owned several businesses that, in total, employed more than four employees, the employer was an employer within the meaning of former 59-10-2, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-2 NMSA 1978), 59-10-4, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-6 NMSA 1978) and 59-10-12.8, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-15 NMSA 1978) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and an employee’s widow was entitled to compensation benefits resulting from the death of her husband who was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from a business trip. Clark v. Electronic City, 1977-NMCA-048, 90 N.M. 477, 565 P.2d 348, 1977 N.M. App. LEXIS 613 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977).
Where an employer’s payroll records showed only three employees at the time of an employee’s alleged injury, but there was disputed testimony as to a fourth employee, the question of whether the employer employed four or more persons, and was required to carry workmen’s compensation insurance or to exempt himself from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was properly submitted to the jury; because the facts were in dispute, it could not be said as a matter of law that four or more persons were employed. Castillo v. Juarez, 1969-NMCA-031, 80 N.M. 196, 453 P.2d 217, 1969 N.M. App. LEXIS 552 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969).
Jurisdiction.
While school districts were included in the enumerated employers subject to the provisions of the New Mexico Workmen’s Compensation Act, as found in former 59-10-2, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-2 NMSA 1978), and former 59-10-12, 1953 Comp., there was no basis to assume that a school district could be sued without consent of the state; thus, a trial court lacked jurisdiction over an employee’s action where he failed to obtain consent from the state for the action. McWhorter v. Board of Educ., 1958-NMSC-015, 63 N.M. 421, 320 P.2d 1025, 1958 N.M. LEXIS 1263 (N.M. 1958).
Liability.
An insurer was liable to pay workmen’s compensation claims to the representative of a deceased worker, where the worker had been killed prior to issuance of the policy but subsequent to the effective date of the policy as dated back by the insurer. Points v. Wills, 44 N.M. 31, 97 P.2d 374, 1939 N.M. LEXIS 64, 1939 N.M. LEXIS 65 (N.M. 1939).
Notice.
Requirement that notice of an employee’s claim for workers’ compensation be given to an employer within a fixed period is jurisdictional and a limitation on the right of action; notice, where required, is also a condition precedent to recovery. Ogletree v. Jones, 1940-NMSC-062, 44 N.M. 567, 106 P.2d 302, 1940 N.M. LEXIS 66 (N.M. 1940).
Practice and procedure.
Pursuant to former 59-10-2, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-2 NMSA 1978), had an employer employed four or more persons and not provided workers’ compensation coverage, it would have been error for the trial court to submit the issues of common law defenses to the jury; however, since the number of employees was a disputed fact and proper factual issue for the jury, it was proper for the trial court to submit the issues of common law defenses to the jury in the event that the jury found the employer employed less than four employees. Castillo v. Juarez, 1969-NMCA-031, 80 N.M. 196, 453 P.2d 217, 1969 N.M. App. LEXIS 552 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969).
Workers’ compensation.
New Mexico’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not conflict with each other, but rather they have different purposes and provide remedies for different grievances. Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch., 2003-NMCA-058, 133 N.M. 618, 67 P.3d 908, 2003 N.M. App. LEXIS 12 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003), rev'd, 2005-NMSC-028, 138 N.M. 331, 120 P.3d 413, 2005 N.M. LEXIS 445 (N.M. 2005).
Notes to Unpublished Decisions
Employees.
Unpublished decision: Plaintiffs’ negligence claim failed because they had not adequately alleged the elements of a negligence claim against any city defendant, and statutory immunities under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act protected the city defendants from liability. Tapia v. City of Albuquerque, F. Supp. 2d 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44191 (D.N.M. Mar. 31, 2014).
Research References and Practice Aids
New Mexico Law Review.
Workers’ Compensation—The District Court Should Make The Initial Determination Of Jurisdiction In Workers’ Compensation Cases Involving Intentional Tort Claims — Eldridge v. Circle K Corp., Justin Lesky, 28 N.M. L. Rev. 665 (1998).
Bankruptcy Law—Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Holds Worker’s Compensation Premiums Are Not Entitled To Fringe Benefits Priority Status — In Re Southern Star Foods, Inc., Deborah Gille, 28 N.M. L. Rev. 487 (1998).
Workers’ Compensation Law — The Sexual Harassment Claim Quandary: Workers’ Compensation As An Inadequate And Unavailable Remedy: Cox v. Chino Mines/Phelps Dodge, Carlos M. Quinones, 24 N.M. L. Rev. 565 (1994).