As used in the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978], unless the context otherwise requires, “employer” includes any person or body of persons, corporate or incorporate, and the legal representative of a deceased employer or the receiver or trustee of a person, corporation, association or partnership engaged in or carrying on for the purpose of business or trade, charitable organizations, except as provided in Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978, and also includes the state and each county, municipality, school district, drainage, irrigation or conservancy district and public institution and administrative board thereof employing workers under the terms of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
HISTORY:
1953 59-10-12.8, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 295, § 8; 1975, ch. 284, § 5; 1989, ch. 263, § 11.
Notes to Decisions
Employees.
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 as defined by former 59-10-12.9, 1953 Comp., because he was another company’s foreman in charge of the operation from which the accidental injury; 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).
Employer.
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).
Wage earning ability.
Substantial evidence was found to support the dismissal of an employee’s claim for workmen’s compensation because, based on the fact that a doctor testified that he thought the employee had the back condition all of his life, that there were considerable arthritic changes around it, that there was no evidence of a traumatic episode that caused the disability as alleged, and because in his opinion the unloading of cement blocks did not aggravate the employee’s back condition as alleged, the employee failed to prove the causal connection as a medical probability by expert medical testimony as required by former 59-10-13.3, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-28 NMSA 1978); moreover, the employee failed to establish that his wage-earning ability had been decreased as a result of the alleged accidental injury as required by former 59-10-12.18, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-15 NMSA 1978) and former 59-10-12.19, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-26 NMSA 1978). Gallegos v. Kennedy, 1968-NMSC-170, 79 N.M. 590, 446 P.2d 642, 1968 N.M. LEXIS 2016 (N.M. 1968).
Workers’ compensation.
Where a sheriff was injured in a car wreck in the course of his employment, the trial court properly found that he was entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits for a total permanent disability, as provided for in former 59-10-12.18, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-15 NMSA 1978), even though he continued to draw his full salary; the sheriff was unable to perform any type of work such as he had formerly been able to do. Roybal v. County of Santa Fe, 1968-NMSC-073, 79 N.M. 99, 440 P.2d 291, 1968 N.M. LEXIS 1930 (N.M. 1968).