 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curliss v. B & C Auto Parts11/2/1993
ent misrepresentations regarding the provisions of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act. Since Worker entered into the settlement under the mistaken belief that he had suffered no brain injury, we reverse the Judge's denial to set aside the lump sum settlement. Our decision is consistent with NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-12 (Repl.Pamp.1987) which disfavors lump sum payment rather than periodic payments. In addition, under SCRA 1-060(B), it is consistent with the need to carefully balance the competing principles of finality on the one hand, while permitting relief from unjust judgments on the other. See ), cert. denied, 101 N.M. 11, 677 P.2d 624 (1984). Under these exceptional and compelling circumstances, it is appropriate
to grant Worker the relief he requests.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the Judge's denial to set aside the settlement pursuant to Section 52-5-9(B) and we remand for a determination regarding Worker's disability due to his brain injury and for a consideration of an award for facial disfigurement and attorney fees. On appeal, Worker is awarded costs and $2000 in attorney fees. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
|