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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 JULIAN ARMENDARIZ,
3 Worker-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 32,888
5 BERNALILLO COUNTY DETENTION,
6 CENTER and NEW MEXICO COUNTY
7 INSURANCE AUTHORITY,
8 Employer/Insurer-Appellants.
9 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION
10 Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge
11 Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Brown
12 Jeffrey C. Brown
13 Albuquerque, NM
14 for Appellee
15 Hoffman Kelley, LLP
16 Phyllis Savage Lynn
17 Keith D. Drennan
18 Albuquerque, NM
19 for Appellants
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 GARCIA, Judge.
3 {1} Employer/Insurer appeals from the compensation order entered by the workers’
4 compensation judge (WCJ). On appeal, Employer/Insurer contends that the WCJ erred
5 in concluding that Worker did not voluntarily remove himself from the workforce
6 when Worker was terminated from the Bernalillo County Detention Center, and
7 therefore also erred in concluding that Worker was entitled to temporary total
8 disability benefits (TTD) and modifier benefits. This Court issued a calendar notice
9 proposing to reverse, and Worker filed a memorandum in opposition. While this case
10 was pending on the summary calendar, this Court issued its opinion in Hawkins v.
11 McDonald’s, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,635, Dec. 17, 2013), cert.
12 denied, 2014-NMSC-002 (No. 34,511, Feb. 12, 2014). We therefore issued a second
13 calendar notice, this time relying on Hawkins, and proposed to affirm.
14 Employer/Insurer has filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second notice
15 of proposed disposition. In its memorandum in opposition, Employer/Insurer concedes
16 that “[i]f the interpretation of law put forth in Hawkins adequately balances the
17 interests of the worker and the employer, Worker will be entitled to PPD and statute-
18 based modifier benefits.” [2dMIO 1] However, Employer/Insurer argues that Hawkins
19 “strikes an unfair balance against Employer[.]” [2dMIO 1] To the extent
2
1 Employer/Insurer is asking this Court to reconsider Hawkins, we decline to do so.
2 Given that Hawkins is the latest pronouncement from this Court on this issue, we
3 apply the holding in Hawkins and affirm for the reasons stated in our second notice
4 of proposed disposition.
5 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9
10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
11
12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
3