 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Connick v. County of Bernalillo2/9/1998
1-10(A) (1989). Compensation benefits may also be reduced or suspended when a worker persists in unsanitary or injurious practice that impairs recovery or increases disability. See NMSA 1978, 52-1-51(I) (1990) (effective Jan. 1, 1991). None of these situations apply here. Because the Act evinces a legislative intent to compensate injured workers for impairments independently of lost wages, we hold that Claimant is entitled to continue to receive benefits based on his impairment rating during his period of incarceration.
{14} Shortly after the parties filed their briefs, our Supreme Court issued its opinion in . In Benavidez, a claimant's status as a prisoner did not automatically preclude him from receiving workers' compensation benefits. . Although the focus of Benavidez was on establishing the requisite employer/employee relationship for workers' compensation benefits, it is instructive to note that the status alone of being a prisoner does not preclude eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. Id.
{15} We recognize that the WCJ entered a Conclusion of law stating that Claimant did not have the ability or capacity to earn his pre-injury wage even if he were not incarcerated. The WCJ was persuaded by the parties' stipulation that Claimant could not perform work whether or not incarcerated and, thus, incarceration was irrelevant to continued receipt of compensation benefits. The parties stipulated that Claimant had attempted to return to work at a comparable wage but was unable to do so because of his physical condition; that Claimant was found to be totally disabled by the Social Security Administration; that there was no showing that Claimant had returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage, or that Employer had offered him jobs within his physical restrictions that would earn a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage. We believe the WCJ read Section 52-1-26 too narrowly in light of its legislative purpose.
{16} The parties have cited case law from numerous jurisdictions in their briefs. While these cases are instructive, they are ultimately inapposite to the present case because they involve awards of total disability benefits, temporary disability benefits, or are based on legislation specific to the jurisdiction. See, e.g., Crawford v. Midwest Steel Co., 517 So. 2d 918, 923 (La. Ct. App. 1987) (no suspension of permanent total disability benefits to incarcerated claimant; reasoning based in part on the statutory relinquishment of claimant's right to recover damages in tort); Parker v. Union Camp Corp., 422 S.E.2d 585, 586-87 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992) (suspending permanent total disability benefits to a claimant who became incarcerated based on statute stating that compensation laws do not apply to prisoners who work); King v. Industrial Comm'n, 850 P.2d 1281, 1292-96 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (no suspension of temporary total disability benefits to an incarcerated claimant absent statutory language limiting benefits).
Conclusion
{17} We determine that during the period of his incarceration Claimant is not entitled to disability benefits based on the statutory modification of his impairment rating. Conversely, because the Act evinces a legislative intent to compensate workers for impairment independently of lost wages and this case does not fall within any provision that would reduce or eliminate impairment benefits, Claimant is entitled to continue receiving benefits based on his impairment rating. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case for entry of an order awarding Claimant benefits based solely on his impairment rating.
{18} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|