Hammonds v. Freymiller Trucking, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1993
• Docket Number: No. 13639,13639
• Citation: 1993 NMCA 30,115 N.M. 364,851 P.2d 486
• Parties: Russell Lee HAMMONDS, Claimant-Appellant, v. FREYMILLER TRUCKING, INC. and Self-Insured Services Company, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 486

851 P.2d 486

115 N.M. 364

Russell Lee HAMMONDS, Claimant-Appellant, v. FREYMILLER TRUCKING, INC. and Self-Insured Services Company Respondents-Appellees.

No. 13639.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 3, 1993.

[115 N.M. 366] John E. Keithly, Keithly & English, Anthony, for claimant-appellant.

Thomas L. Johnson, Kathleen Robertson Finz, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Albuquerque, for respondents-appellees.

OPINION

APODACA, Judge.

Russell L. Hammonds (Worker) appeals the workers' compensation judge's (judge) summary judgment order dismissing his claim against Freymiller Trucking, Inc. and Self-Insured Services Co. (collectively referred to as Employer) under New Mexico's Workers' Compensation Act, NMSA 1978, Secs. 52-1-1 to -70 (Repl.Pamp.1991) (the Act), for lack of jurisdiction. Worker raises the following issues: (1) whether an out-of-state employer who employs fewer than three workers within the State of New Mexico is subject to liability under the Act, and (2) whether businesses engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from such liability. Because we hold (1) that an out-of-state employer who employs fewer than three workers in New Mexico may be subject to the Act if the employer employs more than three workers in total (i.e., including workers employed outside New Mexico), and (2) that the statutory exemption for employers involved in interstate commerce does not apply in this case, we reverse and remand to the Workers' Compensation Administration.

BACKGROUND

Worker sustained a work-related injury in New Mexico in September 1990. At the time of the injury, Worker was a resident of New Mexico and was employed by Employer as an interstate truck driver. Employer's main offices are located in California. It maintains no facilities and employs no other workers in New Mexico. Employer's workers' compensation claims agent is located in Indiana. Worker formally signed his employment documents in Indiana, but the parties disagree over whether Worker entered into his employment contract in Indiana or in New Mexico.

To receive workers' compensation benefits, Worker signed an "Agreement to Compensation" form provided by Employer's agent and printed by the State of Indiana. This form states that "compensation shall be payable weekly until terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Indiana Workers' Compensation/Occupational Disease Acts." Worker received benefits pursuant to Indiana's workers' compensation law.

Worker filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in New Mexico in January 1991. The judge granted Employer's motion for summary judgment on the basis that, under Section 52-1-66 (effective until January 1, 1991), New Mexico lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed Worker's claim.

DISCUSSION

1. Employer's Liability under the Act.

Generally, this Court reviews orders granting summary judgment by considering the whole record to ascertain whether there is any issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Roth v. Thompson, 113 N.M. 331, 334-35, 825 P.2d 1241, 1244-45 (1992). Although Worker asserts that there are certain material factual disputes, the dispositive issue here is whether the judge properly applied Section 52-1-66(A) to the undisputed facts when he determined that he lacked jurisdiction to consider Worker's claim. We thus limit our inquiry to whether Employer was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Koenig v. Perez, 104 N.M. 664, 666, 726 P.2d 341, 343 (1986) (summary judgment proper if issue is legal effect of undisputed facts).

Employer contends that Section 52-1-66(A) exempts employers not domiciled in New Mexico that employ fewer than three workers in New Mexico from application of the Act. Worker, on the other hand, essentially contends that the statute simply relieves such employers of certain administrative and filing obligations. We agree with Worker.

We do not agree that the judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. See NMSA 1978, Secs. 52-5-4, -5, -6, & -7 (Repl.Pamp.1991) (granting the Workers' Compensation Administration authority to adopt regulations to effect the purposes of the Act and to hear claims arising under the Act). Rather, the issue is whether Employer can be held liable for benefits, see Sec. 52-1-2, or is exempted from the Act. See Sec. 52-1-6(A). We thus approach the issue as one of statutory construction to determine whether the legislature intended nondomiciled employers who employ fewer than three workers within New Mexico to be liable under the Act.

When interpreting a statute, our central concern is to determine the legislature's intent. State ex rel. Klineline v. Blackhurst, 106 N.M. 732, 735, 749 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1988). Legislative intent is determined primarily from the language of the statute, and this Court will give those words their ordinary meaning unless a different intent is clearly indicated. Schmick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 N.M. 216, 219, 704 P.2d 1092, 1095 (1985). We must "read the act in its entirety and construe each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole." Klineline, 106 N.M. at 735, 749 P.2d at 1114. Additionally, our goal is to read the statutes so as to facilitate their operation and to achieve their goals. Griego v. Bag 'N Save Food Emporium, 109 N.M. 287, 291-92, 784 P.2d 1030, 1034-35 (Ct.App.1989), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 262, 784 P.2d 1005 (1990).

The proper analysis begins with a determination of the Act's scope. Sections 52-1-2 and -6(A) together describe an employer's liability for workers' compensation benefits under the Act. Garcia v. Watson Tile Works, Inc., 111 N.M. 209, 210, 803 P.2d 1114, 1115 (Ct.App.1990). Section 52-1-2 states which employers come within the Act [E]very private person, firm or corporation engaged in carrying on for the purpose of business or trade within this state, and which employs four or more workers, except as provided in Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978, shall become liable to and shall pay to any such worker injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ... compensation in the manner and amount at the times herein required.

Id.; see also Sec. 52-1-6(A) (stating "[e]very employer of four or more workers shall be subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act."). Neither section refers to out-of-state workers or employers or limits the applicability of the Act to employers that employ four or more workers within the state.

The general rule in determining the scope of applicability of workers' compensation statutes is that all of an employer's workers, including out-of-state workers, will be counted in determining whether the employer employs the minimum number of workers necessary to be within the scope of such statutes. Martin v. Furman Lumber Co., 134 Vt. 1, 346 A.2d 640, 642 (1975); see also 1C Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation Sec. 52.34, at 9-207 (1992); 82 Am.Jur.2d Workers' Compensation Sec. 120, at 115-16 (1992). This Court has not previously addressed this specific issue. However, in Clark v. Electronic City, 90 N.M. 477, 565 P.2d 348 (Ct.App.), cert. denied sub nom., Capo v. Clark, 90 N.M. 636, 567 P.2d 485 (1977), we held that an employer who cumulatively employed four or more workers at multiple sole proprietorships was subject to the Act, even though the particular business for which the claimant worked did not employ four or more workers. Clark rejected adding language to the predecessor to Section 52-1-2 so that only workers at each establishment were included because, we said, adding such language "is a function of the legislature, not the courts." Id., 90 N.M. at 479, 565 P.2d at 350.

We similarly decline to add limiting language to the statutes here. If the legislature had intended to limit the broad language of Sections 52-1-2 and -6(A) to employers that employed four or more persons within New Mexico, it would have so stated. We therefore conclude that, under Section 52-1-2, all workers employed by a private employer "engaged in carrying on for the purpose of business or trade within this state," Sec. 52-1-2, wherever employed, must be considered in determining whether the employer is subject to the Act. See Martin, 346 A.2d at 641-42; cf. Clark, 90 N.M. at 479, 565 P.2d at 350.

Having determined that Employer is not exempt from New Mexico's Act simply because Employer employed only one worker within New Mexico, we next consider whether Employer is exempted under Section 52-1-66(A), which provides:

Every employer not domiciled in the state that employs three or more workers within the state, whether that employment is permanent, temporary or transitory and whether the workers are residents or nonresidents of the state, shall comply with the provisions of Section 52-1-4 NMSA 1978 and, unless self-insured, shall obtain a worker's compensation insurance policy or an endorsement to an existing policy, issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 59A-17-10.1 NMSA 1978. An employer who does not comply with the foregoing requirement shall be barred from recovery by legal action for labor or materials furnished during any period of time in which he was not in compliance with the requirements of this section and, if the noncomplying employment is in an activity for which the employer is licensed under the provisions of the Construction Industries [Licensing] Act, then the employer's license is subject to revocation or suspension for the violation.

Section 52-1-4(A) (effective until January 1, 1991), expressly referred to in the above-noted statutory language, requires "[e]very employer subject to the Workers' Compensation Act" to have filed with the Workers' Compensation Administration a certificate of insurance coverage or to have otherwise demonstrated to the administration that insurance coverage is unnecessary.

Employer argues that, because Section...