 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Growney Equipment Co. v. Jouett5/20/2005
d no longer tolerate the pain and became disabled from aggravation of the initial injury. Salinas-Kendrick, 118 N.M. at 165, 879 P.2d at 797 ("Although Claimant suffered an accident in September 1990, she did not become disabled from that accident until December 1991.") (emphasis added). Thus, we determine that Salinas-Kendrick, as discussed further below, is directly applicable to the present matter. We conclude that Salinas-Kendrick does not support the determination that Growney Equipment, as the employer at the time of the initial injury but not the later disability, is initially responsible for the payment of disability benefits where there is evidence that Jouett's continued work-related activities have contributed to his 2001 disability.
{18} In its adoption of a contribution theory, the Court of Appeals addressed whether Growney Equipment would be liable "for the entire cost medical treatment, temporary total disability, and related benefits" if further medical tests demonstrate that Jouett's current condition is causally connected to his work with subsequent employers. Jouett, 2004-NMCA-023, 18. The Court noted that Section 52-1-47(D) allows a subsequent employer to reduce its payments to avoid overlap of an initial employer's payments, but found no similar statutory provision for the initial employer. Jouett, 2004-NMCA-023, 18. The Court described the apportionment between the employers as an equitable remedy when two successive injuries combine to produce the final disability and stated that "the successive employers and their insurers are each required to contribute their proportionate share of the total responsibility for benefits when those benefits are awarded on the basis of a single rating of disability resulting from more than one compensable injury." Id. 19. The Court explained that its decision was based on the notion of alleviating the harsh result on the initial employer, Growney Equipment, "when subsequent injuries may have combined to produce a single disability." Id. The Court of Appeals determined that its conclusion was consistent with other provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, including Section 52-1-47(D), as well as New Mexico's public policy as exemplified by our adoption of comparative negligence. Id. 20. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the contribution claim is "completely separate from" the compensation claim, the contribution claim is "not subject to the notice requirements and statute of limitations applicable to a worker 's claim;" instead, as "a third-party action brought by an employer against other employers that may be deemed liable for contribution, the general statute of limitations for contribution actions shall apply." Id.
{19} We find no authority for the conclusion that, where a non-disabling work-related accidental injury is aggravated by subsequent employment, the first employer is initially wholly liable for medical and disability benefits resulting from the later disability. There is also no support for contribution by successive employers based on theories outside of workers' compensation law because the Workers' Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries.
{20} We agree with the Court of Appeals' observation that Section 52-1-47(D) authorizes only subsequent employers to reduce its payments and thus "is of no assistance to First Employer," as well as its recognition that "there is no similar provision giving relief where the First Employer is held initially responsible." Jouett, 2004-NMCA-023, 18. However, we believe that the fact that the Legislature has only provided for subsequent, or current, employers to apportion payment, not previous employers, is particularly significant in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|