A. The risk management division of the general services department shall provide workers’ compensation coverage for all public employees, as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978], of all state agencies regardless of the hazards of their employment.
B. The director of the risk management division shall ascertain the most economical means of providing such coverage and may secure a policy or policies of insurance to provide the coverage required. The director of the risk management division shall collect or transfer funds from each agency to cover the agency’s respective share of the cost of the coverage.
C. The director of the risk management division shall determine the possibilities for including school districts under uniform coverage and the methods of administration therefor.
D. For purposes of this section, “state” or “state agency” means the state of New Mexico or any of its branches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions.
HISTORY:
1953 59-10-2.1, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 385, § 15; 1978, ch. 166, § 15; 1979, ch. 199, § 1; 1987, ch. 235, § 4.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
Section 52-1-3 NMSA 1978 does not establish a legal status for each state agency that is independent from the state itself, and did not permit a claim by a public defender in tort against the state highway department. Singhas v. State Highway Dep't, 1995-NMCA-089, 120 N.M. 474, 902 P.2d 1077, 1995 N.M. App. LEXIS 92 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995), aff'd, 1997-NMSC-054, 124 N.M. 42, 946 P.2d 645, 1997 N.M. LEXIS 405 (N.M. 1997).
Applicability.
In a negligence action against the New Mexico state highway department, the dual persona doctrine under 52-1-3D NMSA 1978 did not apply because the words “state” and “state agency” meant the State of New Mexico or any of its departments and the state public defender’s officer and the state highway department were not separate and distinct legal entities. Singhas v. New Mexico State Highway Dep't, 1997-NMSC-054, 124 N.M. 42, 946 P.2d 645, 1997 N.M. LEXIS 405 (N.M. 1997).
Construction with other law.
Workers’ compensation claimant was employed by the New Mexico state highway department, and by application of 15-7-6 NMSA 1978 and 52-1-3 NMSA 1978, the state was self-insured for purposes of the Workmens’ Compensation Act; consequently, because the state and its political subdivisions were exempted from awards of interest on judgments, and because the claimant did not cite any statute or common law exception in support of his contention that prejudgment interest was proper, the appellate court interpreted 56-8-4D NMSA 1978 as containing an express exemption for the state from awards of prejudgment interest in favor of an injured worker in a workers’ compensation action, and the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest was proper. Montney v. State, 1989-NMCA-002, 108 N.M. 326, 772 P.2d 360, 1989 N.M. App. LEXIS 13 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Moya v. City of Albuquerque, 2007-NMCA-057, 141 N.M. 617, 159 P.3d 266, 2007 N.M. App. LEXIS 29 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007).
Employees.
While a school district’s business was not hazardous, the employees of governmental bodies, including school districts, were included under the Workers’ Compensation Act by former § 57-912(h), 1941 Comp. and a school carpenter was entitled to receive compensation benefits. Scofield v. Lordsburg Mun. Sch. Dist., 1949-NMSC-027, 53 N.M. 249, 205 P.2d 834, 1949 N.M. LEXIS 685 (N.M. 1949).
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).