Herndon v. Albuquerque Public Schools

587 P.2d 434, 92 N.M. 287
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1978
Docket12139
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 587 P.2d 434 (Herndon v. Albuquerque Public Schools) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herndon v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 587 P.2d 434, 92 N.M. 287 (N.M. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION

PAYNE, Justice.

Petitioner Mary Herndon seeks certiorari for the purpose of reviewing the decision of the Court of Appeals denying her request for attorney’s fees incurred during the appeal of this case.

The trial court awarded petitioner $37,-500 on her workman’s compensation claim and $3,800 in attorney’s fees. This award was appealed by her employer, Albuquerque Public Schools. Albuquerque Public Schools filed a brief of some thirty-three pages raising three major points for reversal. Petitioner, through her attorney, responded with an answer brief of thirty-eight pages responding to the points raised by Albuquerque Public Schools and raising two additional points. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the issues raised by appellant and accepted the arguments of petitioner regarding the proper date of total disability of the petitioner. On appeal the award was increased from $37,500 to approximately $54,000. However, the Court of Appeals allowed no additional attorney’s fees. We reverse and hold that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in failing to award additional attorney’s fees.

We recently held that the award of attorney’s fees in a workmen’s compensation case is discretionary with the court. Genuine Parts Co. v. Garcia, 92 N.M. 57, 582 P.2d 1270 (1978); Ortega v. New Mexico State Highway Department, 77 N.M. 185, 420 P.2d 771 (1966).

The Workmen’s Compensation Law is very specific as to attorney’s fees and restricts an attorney to those fees which are permitted by the court. § 59-10-23, N.M. S.A. 1953 (Repl.1974). If attorneys are denied fees for work prosecuted on behalf of an injured workman, there would be a chilling effect upon the ability of an injured party to obtain adequate representation. Through their insurance companies, employers regularly obtain exceptional and well-qualified counsel to defend them in such cases. It is imperative that courts foster and protect the ability of an injured workman to obtain counsel of his choice. We must avoid a policy or a practice which would discourage representation or the taking of appeals where counsel feels that an injured workman has been aggrieved at the trial court level. We must also preserve the right of an injured workman to have representation where the employer has appealed.

The Court of Appeals is therefore reversed as to the refusal to award additional attorney’s fees. Counsel for the petitioner is granted additional fees of $2,500 for the appeal to the Court of Appeals, and an award of an additional $500 for prosecuting the petition for writ of certiorari.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

McMANUS, C. J., and SOSA, EASLEY and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTS
2005 NMSC 016 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2005)
City of Louisville v. Slack
39 S.W.3d 809 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2001)
Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc.
910 P.2d 334 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1995)
Corn v. New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union
889 P.2d 234 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1994)
Rhodes v. Industrial Commission
868 P.2d 467 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1993)
Strong v. Sysco Corp./Nobel Sysco
776 P.2d 1258 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1989)
Lea County Good Samaritan Village v. Wojcik
766 P.2d 920 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1988)
LEA CTY GOOD SAMARITAN VIL. v. Wojcik
766 P.2d 920 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1988)
Superintendent of Insurance v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co.
725 P.2d 581 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1986)
Manzanares v. Lerner's, Inc.
696 P.2d 479 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1985)
Hogaboom v. Economy Mattress
684 P.2d 990 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1984)
Holloway v. New Mexico Office Furniture
660 P.2d 615 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1983)
Turner v. Shop-Rite Foods, Inc.
653 P.2d 887 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1982)
Bufalino v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
650 P.2d 844 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1982)
Tafoya v. S & S Plumbing Co.
638 P.2d 1094 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1981)
Wilson v. Richardson Ford Sales, Inc.
638 P.2d 1071 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1981)
Fitch v. Sam Tanksley Trucking Co.
623 P.2d 991 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1980)
Anaya v. New Mexico Steel Erectors, Inc.
610 P.2d 1199 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1980)
Clymo v. United Nuclear Corp.
608 P.2d 526 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1980)
Fryar v. Johnsen
601 P.2d 718 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
587 P.2d 434, 92 N.M. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herndon-v-albuquerque-public-schools-nm-1978.