Castro-Montanez v. Milk-N-Atural, LLC, 34,772

• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
• Parties: JOSE CASTRO-MONTANEZ, Worker-Appellant, v. MILK-N-ATURAL, LLC, Employer-Appellee, and UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND OF NEW MEXICO (UEF), Statutory Third Party-Appellee.
• Docket Number: NO. 34,772,34,772
• Decision Date: 28 October 2015

JOSE CASTRO-MONTANEZ, Worker-Appellant,
v.
MILK-N-ATURAL, LLC, Employer-Appellee,
and
UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND OF NEW MEXICO (UEF), Statutory Third Party-Appellee.

NO. 34,772

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

October 28, 2015

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION
Leonard J. Padilla, District Judge

New Mexico Center on Law & Poverty
Gail Evans
Tim Davis
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Hinkle Shanor LLP
Chelsea R. Green
Roswell, NM

for Appellee

Page 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ZAMORA, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Castro-Montanez (Worker) appeals from the workers' compensation judge's (WCJ) order granting Employer Milk-N-Atural's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Workers' Compensation Act categorically excludes farm and ranch laborers from coverage. Based on our recent decision in Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy, 2015-NMCA-097, 356 P.3d 546, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to reverse. Employer has filed a memorandum in opposition, requesting that we reconsider our holding in Rodriguez regarding the farm and ranch laborer exclusion or find that the holding should be applied prospectively. [MIO 7] Employer also requests that we stay this appeal, explaining that the New Mexico Supreme Court may "reverse or refine" our Opinion. [MIO 11] Unpersuaded, we reverse.

Retroactive Application of Rodriguez

{2} Employer continues to argue that the holding of Rodriguez should not be applied retroactively to workers' claims pending on or after March 30, 2012, id. ¶ 37, which encompasses the present claim. [DS 1; MIO 8] Employer's memorandum in opposition concedes that Rodriguez controls the outcome of the instant case, but invites this Court to reconsider our holding in Rodriguez and its retroactive application. [MIO 8] We decline to do so. After an analysis of the three pertinent

Page 3

factors to determine whether retroactive application is justified, Rodriguez expressly concluded that the "Opinion's holding shall apply to workers' claims that were pending as of March 30, 2012." Id. A case is defined as pending...