It is the intent of the legislature in creating the workers' compensation administration that the laws administered by it to provide a workers' benefit system be interpreted to assure the quick and efficient delivery of indemnity and medical benefits to injured and disabled workers at a reasonable cost to the employers who are subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act [Chapter 52, Article 1 NMSA 1978] and the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law [52-3-1 NMSA 1978]. It is the specific intent of the legislature that benefit claims cases be decided on their merits and that the common law rule of "liberal construction" based on the supposed "remedial" basis of workers' benefits legislation shall not apply in these cases. The workers' benefit system in New Mexico is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike. Accordingly, the legislature declares that the Workers' Compensation Act and the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law are not remedial in any sense and are not to be given a broad liberal construction in favor of the claimant or employee on the one hand, nor are the rights and interests of the employer to be favored over those of the employee on the other hand.
History: 1978 Comp., § 52-5-1, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 342, § 30; 1989, ch. 263, § 70; 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 53.
ANNOTATIONSRepeals and reenactments. — Laws 1987, ch. 342, § 30 repealed former 52-5-1 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 27, relating to creation of workmen's compensation administration, effective July 1, 1987, and enacted a new 52-5-1 NMSA 1978.
Cross references. — For authority to establish workers' compensation division, see N.M. Const., art. III, § 1.
The 1990 (2nd S.S.) amendment, effective January 1, 1991, substituted "administration" for "division of the labor department" near the beginning of the first sentence.
Appropriations. — Laws 1990, ch. 65, § 3, effective May 16, 1990, appropriated $750,000 from the workers' compensation administration fund to the workers' compensation division of the labor department for expenditure in the seventy-ninth fiscal year for the purpose of providing for the review and other services provided pursuant to 52-4-2 and 52-4-3 NMSA 1978.
Constitutionality. — This section is a statement of legislative intent; legislature did not intend the courts to disregard precedent by applying a liberal construction, and therefore this section does not violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Benavides v. Eastern N.M. Med. Ctr., 2014-NMSC-037, rev'g No. 32,450, mem. Op. (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013) (non-precedential).
Workers' Compensation Act fulfills its purpose through a bargain in which an injured worker gives up his or her right to sue the employer for damages in return for an expedient settlement covering medical expenses and wage benefits, while the employer gives up her defenses in return for immunity from a tort claim. Morales v. Reynolds, 2004-NMCA-098, 136 N.M. 280, 97 P.3d 612, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-008, 136 N.M. 492, 100 P.3d 197.
Legislative intent. — This section calls for a balanced and evenhanded construction of the Workers' Compensation Act. Gomez v. B.E. Harvey Gin Corp., 1990-NMSC-057, 110 N.M. 100, 792 P.2d 1143.
The legislature's rejection of the rule of liberal construction of the Workers' Compensation Act in favor of workers does not preclude adoption of the traveling-employee rule. Ramirez v. Dawson Prod. Partners, Inc., 2000-NMCA-011, 128 N.M. 601, 995 P.2d 1043.
This section is a prospectively applicable statement of legislative intent that neither attempts nor purports to retroactively dismantle established workers' compensation case law enunciated under the rule of liberal construction. Garcia v. Mt. Taylor Millwork, Inc., 1989-NMCA-100, 111 N.M. 17, 801 P.2d 87, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282, 795 P.2d 87.
This section is a prospective statement of legislative intent which leaves intact the premises exception to the going and coming rule adopted in Dupper v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1987-NMSC-007, 105 N.M. 503, 734 P.2d 743. Garcia v. Mt. Taylor Millwork, Inc., 1989-NMCA-100, 111 N.M. 17, 801 P.2d 87, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282, 795 P.2d 87.
The decision in this case comports with the legislative intent expressed in this section. Jackson v. K & M Constr., 2004-NMCA-082, 136 N.M. 94, 94 P.3d 837, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-007, 136 N.M. 452, 99 P.3d 1164.
All claims to be filed with division. — All claims, regardless of when the injury or death may have occurred, shall be filed with the workmen's (workers') compensation administration (now the workers' compensation division). Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 1986-NMSC-075, 104 N.M. 751, 726 P.2d 1381.
Law reviews. — For case note, "WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW: A Clinical Psychologist Is Qualified to Give Expert Medical Testimony Regarding Causation: Madrid v. Univ. of California, d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 637 (1988).
For annual survey of New Mexico Workers' Compensation Law, see 20 N.M.L. Rev. 459 (1990).
For note, "Workers' Compensation Law - Bad Faith Refusal of an Insurer To Pay Workers' Compensation Benefits: Russell v. Protective Insurance Company," see 20 N.M.L. Rev. 757 (1990).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation §§ 55 to 58.
100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation §§ 369 to 377.