329 P.3d 630
N.M.2014Background
- Fowler sustained a back injury at Vista Care on April 7, 2003 and began temporary total disability (TTD) benefits under §52-1-41.
- She later had back surgery in 2003 and reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on January 11, 2006, after which TTD benefits were terminated per §52-1-25.1.
- Fowler requested lump-sum permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits in March 2006, which the WCA judge granted on April 27, 2006.
- Fowler had another surgery recommended in March 2007; she later filed a WCA complaint on March 16, 2010 seeking reinstatement of TTD and an increased PPD rating.
- The WCA judge found TTD benefits could continue indefinitely and not be limited by the PPD duration limits; the Court of Appeals reversed on the duration issue, prompting certiorari.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether TTD benefits are lifetime or subject to duration limits under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TTD benefits have a lifetime duration under §52-1-41. | Fowler argued TTD is lifetime; no duration limit applies. | Vista Care contends TTD is subject to duration limits like PPD. | TTD benefits are payable for the remainder of the worker’s life. |
| Whether §52-1-47(A) limits TTD benefits or only other combination-type disabilities. | No limitation; TTD is exempt from the 700-week cap. | The 700-week cap applies to combinations of disabilities. | Section 52-1-47(A) excludes TTD from the 700-week limit; limits apply to non-TTD combinations. |
| Whether legislative history supports treating TTD as lifetime and outside PPD duration limits. | Legislative history shows intent for lifetime TTD benefits. | Policy and historical interpretations could constrain TTD. | Legislature intended TTD to be lifetime, reading §52-1-41 with related provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Grande Chapter of Sierra Club v. N.M. Mining Comm’n, 133 N.M. 97 (2003-NMSC-005) (interpretation of statutes; modern statutory reading favored over agency gloss)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rodarte, 136 N.M. 630 (2004-NMSC-035) (agency interpretations not binding when law clearly expressed)
- State v. Davis, 134 N.M. 172 (2003-NMSC-022) (read statutes together to discern legislative intent)
- Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. D’Antonio, 289 P.3d 1232 (2012-NMSC-039) (accurate statutory construction in related enactments)
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 141 N.M. 520 (2007-NMCA-050) (administrative gloss not present where unestablished)
- Albuquerque Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 229 P.3d 494 (2010-NMSC-013) (weight given to long-standing administrative constructions)