Rodriguez v. Brand W. Dairy

Citation356 P.3d 546
Decision Date22 June 2015
Docket Number33,675.,33,104
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico
PartiesNoe RODRIGUEZ, Worker–Appellant, v. BRAND WEST DAIRY, uninsured employer and Uninsured Employer's Fund, statutory payor, Employer/Insurer–Appellees, Maria Angelica Aguirre, Worker–Appellant, v. M.A. & Sons Chili Products and Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico, Employer/Insurer–Appellees.

New Mexico Center on Law & Poverty, Gail Evans, Maria Martinez Sanchez, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellants.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM Richard J. Crollett, Special Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee Uninsured Employers Fund.

Maestas & Suggett, P.C., Paul Maestas, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees and Amicus Curiae New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, Dairy Producers of New Mexico and Dairy Farmers of New Mexico.

OPINION

ZAMORA, Judge.

{1} In these consolidated appeals, Workers challenge the dismissals of their workers' compensation claims, which were based on the portion of the Workers' Compensation Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 52–1–1 to –70 (1929, as amended through 2013), excluding farm and ranch laborers from its coverage. See § 52–1–6(A) (“The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall not apply to employers of ... farm and ranch laborers.” (the exclusion)). The question presented is whether the exclusion violates Workers' rights to equal protection under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. Holding that the exclusion does violate Workers' rights to equal protection, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

{2} Workers each suffered work-related injuries working as farm and ranch laborers. Worker Aguirre was injured picking chile for M.A. & Sons Chili Products. Worker Rodriguez was injured working for Brand West Dairy as a dairy worker and a herdsman. Workers each sought workers' compensation benefits. Both claims were dismissed pursuant to the exclusion. Workers filed separate appeals challenging the constitutionality of the exclusion. The cases were consolidated on appeal.

DISCUSSION

{3} Workers challenge the constitutionality of the exclusion, claiming that it violates equal protection guarantees. Workers also contend that dismissal of their respective claims for compensation was precluded by a previous district court decision that declared the exclusion to be unconstitutional, Griego v. New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration, Second Jud. Dist. No. CV 2009–10130, and a subsequent memorandum opinion of this Court that did not reverse that decision. Griego v. New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration, No. 32,120, memo op., 2013 WL 6662706 (N.M.Ct.App. Nov. 25, 2013) (non-precedential). M.A. & Sons Chili Products and Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico (collectively, M.A. & Sons) argue that the exclusion does not violate equal protection guarantees, while Brand West Dairy and the State of New Mexico Uninsured Employer's Fund (collectively, Brand West) take no position on the constitutionality of the exclusion. All Employers/Insurers agree that the Griego decisions do not control in this case.

I. The Griego Decisions

{4} Griego involved a constitutional challenge to the exclusion. Griego, No. 32,120, memo op. ¶ 2. An injured worker was denied workers' compensation benefits pursuant to the exclusion. The worker attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the exclusion before a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ); however, WCJs do not have authority to rule on the constitutionality of statutes. Chevron Res. ex rel. Blatnik v. N.M. Superintendent of Ins., 1992–NMCA–081, ¶ 19, 114 N.M. 371, 838 P.2d 988. Nonetheless, the worker requested that he be allowed to make the argument in order to make a record for the purposes of an appeal on the constitutional issue.

{5} Subsequently, the worker, joined by two individual plaintiffs and two organizational plaintiffs, brought a declaratory action against the Workers' Compensation Administration (the WCA) and its director, seeking a declaration that the exclusion violated the workers' right to equal protection. Griego, No. 32,120, memo op. ¶ 2. The plaintiffs also requested that the WCA be required to re-open the individual plaintiffs' claims and to stop relying on the exclusion to deny claims. Id. The district court concluded that the exclusion was unconstitutional and ordered the WCA to re-open the individual plaintiffs' claims. Id. ¶ 3.

{6} The WCA appealed to this Court, arguing that the district court lacked both jurisdiction over the individual plaintiffs' claims and the authority to order the WCA to re-open the claims. Id. ¶ 6. The WCA did not explicitly challenge the district court's determination regarding the constitutionality of the exclusion. Id. ¶ 7. We concluded that the issues on appeal were moot because the individual plaintiffs had settled their claims with the WCA. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Since the WCA failed to appeal the district court's ruling as to the constitutional issue, that issue was not properly before us and, as a result, we held that the district court's declaration was final and binding on the WCA. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. The appeal was dismissed. Id. ¶ 12.

{7} Here, Workers argue that the district court's declaration in Griego that the exclusion is unconstitutional, coupled with the holding of our subsequent memorandum opinion, is binding on WCJs, as part of the WCA, and precludes disposition of any workers' compensation claims pursuant to the exclusion. We need not determine whether the district court's determination in Griego was binding in the present cases. Any attempt at such an analysis is not necessary to our decision and would only result in an advisory opinion, which we decline to give. See City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Elec. Co., 1998–NMSC–006, ¶ 18, 124 N.M. 640, 954 P.2d 72 (stating that appellate courts avoid rendering advisory opinions). The WCJs in the present cases refused to recognize the district court's determination in Griego in light of a 1980 decision by this Court that appeared to hold that the exclusion was constitutional. Cueto v. Stahmann Farms, Inc., 1980–NMCA–036, ¶ 8, 94 N.M. 223, 608 P.2d 535(stating, without explanation, that the exclusion did not deny the worker equal protection). We therefore take this opportunity to clarify that Cueto has no precedential effect and to determine conclusively that the exclusion is unconstitutional.

II. Cueto's Equal Protection Holding is Dictum

{8} To the extent the WCJs concluded that the constitutionality of the exclusion was resolved by this Court in Cueto, we disagree. In Cueto, the dispositive issue on appeal was whether the worker was a farm laborer as defined by the exclusion. Id. ¶ 5. It is not clear from our decision that the statute's constitutionality was squarely before us in that case. See id. ¶ 8 ([The worker] seems to argue that the exemption is unconstitutionally vague [and] seems to argue that the exemption denies him equal protection.” (Emphasis added.)). We summarily rejected what we surmised may have been a constitutional challenge by the worker. See id. ([The exclusion] does not [violate equal protection]; the exemption is not arbitrary, but has a reasonable basis.”). We note that to the extent that the statute's constitutionality was not squarely before us in Cueto, its determination is dictum. Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1993–NMSC–035, ¶ 15, 115 N.M. 622, 857 P.2d 22 ([C]ases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

{9} We also note that Cueto was decided prior to our Supreme Court's “modern articulation” of the rational basis level of scrutiny, and it did not employ the same standard of review to the constitutionality of the statute as is required by our courts today. See Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998–NMSC–031, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305 (“To successfully challenge a statute under the rational basis test, a plaintiff is required to show that the statute's classification is not rationally related to the legislative goal.”).

III. Constitutionality of the Exclusion

{10} Workers contend that the exclusion is unconstitutional because it violates their right to equal protection. We review the constitutionality of legislation de novo. Rodriguez v. Scotts Landscaping, 2008–NMCA–046, ¶ 8, 143 N.M. 726, 181 P.3d 718. We presume that the challenged legislation is constitutional and “will not question the wisdom, policy, or justness of legislation enacted by our Legislature.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{11} The New Mexico Constitution provides that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. N.M. Const. art. II, § 18. Equal protection guarantees that similarly situated individuals will be treated in an equal manner, “absent a sufficient reason to justify the disparate treatment.” Wagner v. AGW Consultants, 2005–NMSC–016, ¶ 21, 137 N.M. 734, 114 P.3d 1050. Thus, “statutory classifications that are unreasonable, unrelated to a legitimate statutory purpose, or are not based on real differences” do not comport with equal protection guarantees. Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs., 2005–NMSC–028, ¶ 7, 138 N.M. 331, 120 P.3d 413 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The threshold question in analyzing all equal protection challenges is whether the legislation creates a class of similarly situated individuals who are treated dissimilarly.” Id. ¶ 10. If Workers establish that, as a result of a legislative classification, they have suffered dissimilar treatment from those who are similarly situated, we then determine what level of scrutiny to apply to the challenged legislation. Id. ¶ 8.

A. Disparate Treatment of Similarly Situated Individuals

{12} Workers contend that farm and ranch laborers are similarly situated to other workers within the state. More specifically, Workers contend that farm and ranch laborers, who primarily harvest...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Rodriguez v. Dairy
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2016
    ...Mr. Rodriguez (collectively “Workers”) appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, where their appeals were consolidated. Rodriguez v. Brand W. Dairy , 2015–NMCA–097, ¶ 1, 356 P.3d 546, cert. granted , 2015–NMCERT–008, 2015 WL 10551541. Applying rational basis review, the Court of Appeals st......
  • Doe v. Dep't of Corr., Docket Nos. 321013
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 25 Agosto 2015
    ...has a legitimate interest in discouraging meritorious litigation by inmates."). See also Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy, 2015–NMCA–097, 356 P.3d 546 (2015) (holding that a New Mexico statute 312 Mich.App. 168that excluded farm and ranch laborers from the scope of workers' compensation covera......
  • Castro-Montanez v. Milk-N-Atural, LLC, 34,772
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 28 Octubre 2015
    ...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,......
  • Castro-Montanez v. Milk-N-Atural, LLC, S-1-SC-35609
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...holding that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion was unconstitutional in Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy (Rodriguez I), 2015-NMCA-097, ¶ 7, 356 P.3d 546, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. The workers in Rodriguez I had filed workers' compensation complaints two years prior to Castro-Montanez's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT