Pequeno v. Lowe's Home Centers, 35,395

Worker Joaquen Pequeno appealed a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s Compensation Order entered and mailed January 27, 2016.
Rule and statute require filing a notice of appeal within thirty days of the order; Rule 12-601(B) governs when in conflict with statute.
A timely notice of appeal was therefore due on or before February 26, 2016.
Pequeno filed his notice of appeal on February 29, 2016 — three days after the 30-day period and one business day late.
Pequeno argued confusion between the statute and the court rule about whether the timing is measured from mailing or receipt, and thus filed within thirty days of receipt.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to dismiss for lack of timely filing; after briefing, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was timely filed	Pequeno: confusion between statute and rule; he filed within 30 days of receipt	Employer/Insurer: notice was filed after the 30-day deadline under the rule	Appeal untimely; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the court may excuse a one-business-day delay	Pequeno: implied equitable excuse due to confusion	Employer/Insurer: no grounds to excuse late filing	Court: only extraordinary circumstances justify excusing delay; none shown

Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc., 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94 (1991) (time/place of filing notice of appeal is mandatory precondition to appellate jurisdiction)
Maples v. State, 110 N.M. 34, 791 P.2d 788 (1990) (when rule conflicts with statute, the rule controls)
Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (1994) (extraordinary circumstances required to excuse procedural default)
Rice v. Gonzales, 79 N.M. 377, 444 P.2d 288 (1968) (appellate court must determine whether it has jurisdiction)
Massengill v. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co., 311 P.3d 1231 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing rule v. statute precedence on appeal timing)
Tzortzis v. Cty. of Los Alamos, 108 N.M. 418, 773 P.2d 363 (1989) (supreme court rule governs when statute conflicts with rule)