If an employee, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an injury on account of which the employee or, in the event of the employee’s death, the employee’s dependents would have been entitled to the benefits provided by the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978], had such injury occurred within this state, the employee or, in the event of the employee’s death resulting from the injury, the employee’s dependents shall be entitled to the benefits provided by that act; provided that at the time of the injury:
A. the employee’s employment is principally localized in this state;
B. the employee is working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment not principally localized in any state;
C. the employee is working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment principally localized in another state whose workers’ compensation law is not applicable to the employee’s employer;
D. the employee is working under a contract of hire made in this state for employment outside the United States and Canada; or
E. the employee is an unpaid health professional deployed outside this state by the department of health in response to a request for emergency health personnel made pursuant to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact [12-10-14 NMSA 1978].
HISTORY:
1953 59-10-33.1, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 241, § 1; 1989, ch. 263, § 40; 2007, ch. 328, § 2.
Amendment Notes.
The 2007 amendment, effective June 15, 2007, added Subsection E.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
Where an employee sought benefits under the New Mexico Workmen’s Compensation Act, former § 57-933, 1941 Comp., he was not precluded from recovering even though the employee’s crew was finished with work in New Mexico and was permanently assigned to Arizona; the permanent transfer to Arizona was not effective until the worker was returned to where he had parked his private car in New Mexico on his final day of work in New Mexico. La Rue v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 1953-NMSC-017, 57 N.M. 93, 254 P.2d 1059, 1953 N.M. LEXIS 954 (N.M. 1953).
Jurisdiction.
Where a worker hired in New Mexico accepted an offer of employment conditional upon his passing a drug test in Pennsylvania before he could start working on an oil rig there, the employment contract was formed in New Mexico. When the worker was injured in Pennsylvania, there was jurisdiction to award workers’ compensation benefits under the extra-territorial coverage statute. Potter v. Patterson UTI Drilling Co., 2010-NMCA-042, 148 N.M. 270, 234 P.3d 104, 2010 N.M. App. LEXIS 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
Requirements.
Where a worker’s contract of hire was not made in New Mexico, the worker did not meet the extraterritorial coverage requirements of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act (52-1-1 NMSA 1978); a trial court did not fail to give full faith and credit to a Nevada agency’s adjudication that the worker was not entitled to benefits under Nevada law. Orcutt v. S & L Paint Contractors, 1990-NMCA-036, 109 N.M. 796, 791 P.2d 71, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 24 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
Under former 1929 Code, § 68-102, the husband was the head of the family, and he could choose any reasonable place or mode of living, and the wife had to conform thereto; thus, the home or domicile of the husband was that of his wife, and a wife who lived in Mexico with the intent to return to the husband in the United States was a resident of the U.S. for workers’ compensation purposes. Gallup Am. Coal Co. v. Lira, 1935-NMSC-071, 39 N.M. 496, 50 P.2d 430, 1935 N.M. LEXIS 79 (N.M. 1935).
Workers’ compensation.
Section 52-1-47 NMSA 1978 did not entitle the employer to a credit against benefits being paid to a worker for a work-related injury by the amount of benefits the employer was paying to the worker for a previous work-related injury that occurred in another state and that was governed solely by the other state’s laws. Yates v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 1994-NMCA-087, 118 N.M. 167, 879 P.2d 799, 1994 N.M. App. LEXIS 78 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994).
Workers’ Compensation Administration erred in denying benefits to a claimant where the extraterritorial-coverage provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 52-1-64A NMSA 1978, extended to the claimant’s injury in Arizona because the claimant’s employment was localized in New Mexico; the court noted that the claimant resided in New Mexico and worked for a substantial period of time in New Mexico. Todacheene v. G & S Masonry, 1993-NMCA-126, 116 N.M. 478, 863 P.2d 1099, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 117 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1223, 1993 N.M. LEXIS 333 (N.M. 1993).
In a workers’ compensation case, a judgment entered against defendants, an employer and its compensation carrier, was affirmed because the extraterritorial section under former § 57-933, 1941 Comp. indicated legislative intent that any employee hired in New Mexico to work exclusively in another state was to be covered by the Act for at least six months after leaving the state as result of his employment, unless his assignment to work in the other state could be classified as permanent assignment causing him to permanently depart from New Mexico. Franklin v. Geo. P. Livermore, Inc., 1954-NMSC-054, 58 N.M. 349, 270 P.2d 983, 1954 N.M. LEXIS 1131 (N.M. 1954).