Cox v. City of Albuquerque
34,031
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Cox worked for the City intermittently 1992–2009; she injured her back at work in 2000 and later had a lifting restriction.
- In April 2009 the City offered Cox re-employment as a security officer described as within her medical restriction; Cox rejected the offer two days later as insufficiently specific.
- A Workers’ Compensation judge (WCJ) later issued findings in a separate WCA proceeding (not admitted at trial) that the traffic investigator position met Cox’s restrictions and that the security-officer offer was unreasonable; the WCJ’s order was not in the trial record.
- In 2011 the parties executed a settlement agreement (conditioned on WCJ approval) that would have included a lump-sum payment and City assistance with a PERA disability application; the WCJ did not approve the settlement and Cox never finalized PERA implementation.
- At trial the district court admitted evidence of the City’s offer and that Cox was approved by PERA for a disability pension, but excluded (1) the WCJ’s findings/orders and (2) the 2011 settlement agreement; the jury found for the City on all NMHRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of City’s re-employment offer | Offer was inadmissible under Rule 11-408 (settlement-related evidence) | Offer was admissible; Cox failed to preserve Rule 11-408 objection | Cox did not preserve the Rule 11-408 challenge; admission not reviewed on merits |
| Exclusion of WCJ’s rejection of the offer | WCJ order was relevant to timing/reason Cox could not accept offer; exclusion prejudiced Cox | WCJ evidence was untimely, not shown to precede Cox’s rejection, and properly excluded | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; record lacked timing evidence linking WCJ order to Cox’s rejection |
| Admission of PERA approval but exclusion of settlement details | PERA approval was tied to the settlement and WCJ rejection; exclusion prevented Cox from explaining why she didn’t accept pension | PERA approval evidence did not "open the door" to collateral settlement evidence; settlement collateral and properly excluded | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; no evidence PERA was bound by the settlement or WCJ order and Cox’s mistaken belief does not excuse mitigation duty |
| Preservation of evidentiary arguments on appeal | Cox contends trial rulings were erroneous | City argues many arguments were not raised below | Court refused to consider arguments not preserved below (motions/new-trial filings insufficient to preserve new evidentiary theories) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 N.M. 47, 976 P.2d 999 (N.M. 1999) (standard: admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sims v. Sims, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153 (N.M. 1996) (abuse of discretion occurs when ruling is contrary to logical conclusions demanded by facts)
- Vill. of Angel Fire v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Colfax Cty., 148 N.M. 804, 242 P.3d 371 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (preservation rule: party must fairly invoke district court ruling on same grounds urged on appeal)
- Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 146 N.M. 853, 215 P.3d 791 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (motion for new trial generally does not preserve issues not raised at trial)
- State v. Otto, 141 N.M. 443, 157 P.3d 8 (N.M. 2007) (trial judge afforded leeway in balancing probative value against unfair prejudice)
- Cumming v. Nielson’s, Inc., 108 N.M. 198, 769 P.2d 732 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (appellant must show erroneous admission/exclusion was prejudicial to obtain reversal)