Contreras v. Miller Bonded

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 29, 2014
• Docket: 33,577
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JOHN CONTRERAS,

3 Worker-Appellant,

4 vs. No. 33,577

5 MILLER BONDED, INC., and 6 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 7 ASSOCIATION OF NEW 8 MEXICO INC. WORKERS’ 9 COMPENSATION GROUP FUND,

10 Employer/Insurer-Appellee.

11 APPEAL FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINSTRATION 12 Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge

13 The Gilpin Law Firm, LLC 14 Donald Gilpin 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 17 for Worker-Appellant

18 Maestas & Suggett, P.C. 19 Paul Maestas 20 Albuquerque, NM

21 for Employer/Insurer-Appellee 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 HANISEE, Judge.

3 {1} Worker has appealed from an order denying his claim for benefits. We

4 previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to

5 uphold the WCJ’s determination. Worker has filed a memorandum in opposition.

6 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

7 {2} As previously described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, where

8 causation is disputed, expert medical testimony must be presented in support of any

9 claim. See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-28(B) (1987) (“In all cases where the employer or his

10 insurance carrier deny that an alleged disability is a natural and direct result of the

11 accident, the worker must establish that causal connection as a probability by expert

12 testimony of a health care provider . . . testifying within the area of his expertise.”);

13 Gonzales v. Stanke-Brown & Associates, Inc., 1982-NMCA-109, ¶ 14, 98 N.M. 379,

14 648 P.2d 1192 (“This causation requirement applies to any claim for worker’s

15 compensation[.]”). In this case, although causation was disputed, Worker presented

16 no expert medical testimony in support of his claims. [MIO 1] This is a fatal

17 deficiency. Although Worker invites this Court to depart from the foregoing

18 principles, and to “consider his testimony along with the medical diagnostic tests” in

2 1 order to infer the requisite link between his injury and his disability, [MIO 3] we

2 decline the invitation. See generally State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 134

3 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (“[W]hen a statute contains language which is clear and

4 unambiguous, we must give effect to that language[.]” (internal quotation marks and

5 citation omitted)). Insofar as Worker bore the burden of establishing causation, see

6 id., we are similarly unpersuaded that it was incumbent upon Employer/Insurer to

7 disprove causation. [MIO 4]

8 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary

9 disposition and above, we affirm.

10 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 _____________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

13 WE CONCUR:

14 __________________________________ 15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

16 __________________________________ 17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge