 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meyers v. Western Auto6/6/2002
not persuaded us that we should look beyond this plain language, we defer to the statute. Draper, 116 N.M. at 777, 867 P.2d at 1159.
VI. Constitutionality of Attorney Fees Cap
Worker's final challenge is to the constitutionality of the attorney fees cap in Section 52-1-54(I). In Corn v. New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union, 119 N.M. 199, 207-08, 889 P.2d 234, 242-43 (Ct. App. 1994), overruled by Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, 32, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305, this Court held that the statutory cap on attorney fees violated equal protection in the absence of restrictions on employers' legal fees. Although the Supreme Court in Trujillo overruled Corn's use of a heightened rational basis (or fourth-tiered) approach, it stated that it was confident the same result would be reached under a rational basis standard. Trujillo, 1998-NMSC-031, 32. However, as this Court observed in Mieras v. Dyncorp, 1996-NMCA-095, 23, 122 N.M. 401, 925 P.2d 518, the legislature remedied the constitutional infirmity addressed in Corn by amending Section 52-1-54(I) to make the cap applicable to both claimants and employers. In Mieras, 1996-NMCA-095, 16-34, we addressed at length whether any post-amendment constitutional concerns remained and applied a rational-basis test, specifically bypassing the heightened rational basis tier criticized in Trujillo. Mieras, 1996-NMCA-095, 28. We concluded that the cap did not violate equal protection or due process.
Although certain language in the Mieras opinion suggests that a cap may be unconstitutional as applied in some circumstances, id. 34, neither the facts in Mieras nor the present case create those circumstances. In Mieras, the WCJ found that the value of the recovered death benefit was over $215,000 and awarded the statutory maximum attorney fee after specifically finding that a reasonable award would exceed the cap. Id. 17, 22. The WCJ also found that the value of the recovered death benefits was over $215,000. In this case, the WCJ awarded Worker $8374 in benefits and found that $9000 was a reasonable attorney fee. The worker in Mieras challenged the amount of the fees, 1996-NMCA-095, 21-22. Worker in this case does not independently challenge the amount of the attorney fees; instead, his challenge to the cap assumes that he would have secured a higher award if the cap did not exist. Worker puts the cart before the horse. Worker must first show that the fee is unreasonable or, as in Mieras, have the WCJ make such a finding. Id. 19. In this case, Worker's total attorney fees are $14,488, consisting of $5800 awarded in the original compensation order plus $9000 awarded as a result of the present case. The cap in this case is increased from $12,500 to $15,000 because of the bad faith award. Section 52-1-54(I). Consequently, Worker's total fee is still just barely under the cap. Worker has not been harmed by the cap and therefore has no standing to assert a challenge to its constitutionality. See Mieras.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm in all respects except for the fourth issue-payment of attorney fees. On that issue, we remand with instructions to WCJ to follow Section 52-1-54(F)(4) and require CNA to pay all of Worker's attorney fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|