Halford v. NM Human Services Dept.
35,890
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 2017Background
- Worker-Appellee Felicia Halford obtained a supplemental compensation order from the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) filed August 19, 2016.
- Employer/Insurer appealed but filed the notice of appeal with the WCA on September 8, 2016, rather than filing it in the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- A notice of appeal was not filed in the Court of Appeals until October 12, 2016, after the 30-day period following the WCA order had expired.
- Employer/Insurer conceded the notice was mistakenly filed with the WCA and argued the error was inadvertent, timely notified the appellee, and caused no prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals issued a proposed disposition to dismiss for lack of timely filing; Employer/Insurer opposed and requested the court exercise discretion to hear the merits.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding place- and time-of-filing requirements are mandatory preconditions to invoking appellate jurisdiction and inadvertence by counsel does not justify relief absent truly unusual circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of appeal filed with WCA (not Court of Appeals) satisfies place-of-filing requirement | Halford argued appeal was improperly filed and jurisdiction lacking | Employer/Insurer conceded filing error but contended the misfiling did not prejudice Halford and should be excused | Court held place-of-filing is a mandatory precondition; misfiling with WCA does not invoke Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction and warranted dismissal |
| Whether inadvertent misfiling and lack of prejudice justify excusing untimely filing | Halford argued strict compliance required; inadvertence insufficient | Employer/Insurer argued policy favors deciding appeals on merits and their error was inadvertent and timely notified appellee | Court held inadvertence or counsel mistake does not constitute the ‘‘unusual circumstances’’ needed to excuse procedural defects; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Govich v. North American Systems, Inc., 814 P.2d 94 (N.M. 1991) (discusses liberal construction for technical deficiencies but treats time/place requirements as mandatory preconditions to jurisdiction)
- Lowe v. Bloom, 798 P.2d 156 (N.M. 1990) (failure to file in correct forum defeats appellate jurisdiction)
- Trujillo v. Serrano, 871 P.2d 369 (N.M. 1994) (timely notice is a mandatory precondition; only unusual circumstances justify overlooking defects)
- Romero v. Pueblo of Sandia, 80 P.3d 490 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (court ordinarily will not entertain untimely notice absent unusual circumstances)
- State v. Upchurch, 137 P.3d 679 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (counsel inadvertence does not qualify as unusual circumstances to excuse untimely appeal)