Sanchez v. Intel Corp., 35,155

Worker (Raymond V. Sanchez) obtained a compensation award and sought attorney fees under New Mexico’s fee-shifting provision for offers of judgment (Section 52-1-54(F)(4)).
Worker served an offer that expressly called for application of NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25.1 (the statute addressing offsets and credits).
Employer (Intel) contested the fee award, arguing the offer should be treated as higher than the recovery because it lacked express language allowing credits/offsets or was otherwise ambiguous.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded attorney fees to Worker; the WCJ referenced Section 52-1-25.1 in the fee order to clarify the basis for offsets/credits.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals issued a proposed disposition to affirm; Employer filed a memorandum in opposition and the Court issued this memorandum opinion affirming the fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Worker’s offer of judgment supports fee shifting despite not listing explicit credits/offsets	Sanchez argued the offer unambiguously invoked §52-1-25.1, which provides for offsets/credits, so Employer was on notice and fee shifting applies	Intel argued the offer lacked express language allowing credits/offsets (or was ambiguous), so it should be treated as higher than the award and fee shifting should not apply	The court held the offer was unambiguous because it expressly called for application of §52-1-25.1 (which by plain language provides offsets/credits); fee shifting was properly applied and the WCJ’s reference to §52-1-25.1 in the fee order clarified Employer’s entitlement to offsets/credits

Leonard v. Payday Prof’l, 142 N.M. 605, 168 P.3d 177 (2007) (an offer does not support fee shifting where critical issues are unresolved and the offer is ambiguous)
Abeyta v. Bumper to Bumper Auto Salvage, 137 N.M. 800, 115 P.3d 816 (2005) (an offer is unambiguous if it clearly expresses the worker’s meaning and intent)