 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buckingham v. Health South Rehabilitation Hospital11/18/1997
nefit in that case was a $2500 lump sum payment to cover future medical payments, as unspeculative an amount as one could imagine.
{17} Perhaps if the legislature had considered the special circumstances of this case--in which the only claim for benefits is for future medical benefits--it may have decided that an award of attorney's fees would be appropriate if the worker was successful in the claim. But this Court's recent decisions have made it abundantly clear that only in extreme circumstances can assumptions about the preferences of the legislature override unambiguous statutory language. In ), the worker lied about his medical condition in his employment application and preemployment medical questionnaire. Under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-28.3(A) (Repl. Pamp. 1991) of the Workers' Compensation Act these lies would have deprived Worker of the compensation benefits he sought if "the employer clearly and conspicuously disclosed that the worker shall be entitled to no future compensation benefits if he knowingly and willfully conceals or makes a false representation about the information requested." Section 52-1-28.3(B). The application and questionnaire, however, contained only the following warning: "I understand that any falsified information, misrepresentations or omissions may disqualify me from further consideration for employment or may result in dismissal if discovered at a later date." . This Court held that this warning did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Reversing the denial of benefits by the workers' compensation Judge, the Court wrote:
The statute is explicit and unambiguous in the disclosure required. If the legislature had considered the matter, it may well have determined that a warning of loss of employment or perhaps a warning of possible criminal sanctions would be adequate. For whatever reasons, however, the legislature did not include such alternatives in the statute.
{18} In ), shortly after the compensable accident the worker was fired for repeated misconduct. She had not complained of the injury prior to her firing. . Before reaching maximum medical improvement she was released to work by her physician, she was capable of modified duty with the employer, and such modified duty would have been available to her if she had not been fired for misconduct. . The employer contended that in these circumstances NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-25.1 (Repl. Pamp. 1991) provided that she was entitled to only two-thirds of the difference between her pre-injury wage and the wage she would have been paid for her modified duty. . This Court disagreed and reversed the workers' compensation Judge, because the statute permitted this reduction in temporary total disability benefits only if the employer "offered" employment to the worker after she was released to work. . The Court wrote:
We recognize that this Court has noted "the general acceptance of the proposition that one should not be permitted to benefit by refusing to take reasonable steps to help oneself." One might reason by analogy that a worker should not be entitled to greater benefit simply because she violated instructions so often that she was fired. But the above-quoted proposition is not a free-floating legal rule to be applied whenever a court wishes. It is only an aid in interpreting statutory language. . . .
. Likewise, here, the statutory language cannot reasonably be construed to permit consideration of Worker's future medical benefits in awarding a fee to her attorney.
{19} To avoid the prospect of Worker's attorney being unpaid for her efforts, the other members of the panel adopt a creative interpretation of Section 52-1-54(H) that was not argued i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|