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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 JOHN CONTRERAS,
3 Worker-Appellant,
4 vs. No. 33,577
5 MILLER BONDED, INC., and
6 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS
7 ASSOCIATION OF NEW
8 MEXICO INC. WORKERS’
9 COMPENSATION GROUP FUND,
10 Employer/Insurer-Appellee.
11 APPEAL FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINSTRATION
12 Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge
13 The Gilpin Law Firm, LLC
14 Donald Gilpin
15 Albuquerque, NM
16
17 for Worker-Appellant
18 Maestas & Suggett, P.C.
19 Paul Maestas
20 Albuquerque, NM
21 for Employer/Insurer-Appellee
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 HANISEE, Judge.
3 {1} Worker has appealed from an order denying his claim for benefits. We
4 previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to
5 uphold the WCJ’s determination. Worker has filed a memorandum in opposition.
6 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
7 {2} As previously described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, where
8 causation is disputed, expert medical testimony must be presented in support of any
9 claim. See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-28(B) (1987) (“In all cases where the employer or his
10 insurance carrier deny that an alleged disability is a natural and direct result of the
11 accident, the worker must establish that causal connection as a probability by expert
12 testimony of a health care provider . . . testifying within the area of his expertise.”);
13 Gonzales v. Stanke-Brown & Associates, Inc., 1982-NMCA-109, ¶ 14, 98 N.M. 379,
14 648 P.2d 1192 (“This causation requirement applies to any claim for worker’s
15 compensation[.]”). In this case, although causation was disputed, Worker presented
16 no expert medical testimony in support of his claims. [MIO 1] This is a fatal
17 deficiency. Although Worker invites this Court to depart from the foregoing
18 principles, and to “consider his testimony along with the medical diagnostic tests” in
2
1 order to infer the requisite link between his injury and his disability, [MIO 3] we
2 decline the invitation. See generally State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 134
3 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (“[W]hen a statute contains language which is clear and
4 unambiguous, we must give effect to that language[.]” (internal quotation marks and
5 citation omitted)). Insofar as Worker bore the burden of establishing causation, see
6 id., we are similarly unpersuaded that it was incumbent upon Employer/Insurer to
7 disprove causation. [MIO 4]
8 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
9 disposition and above, we affirm.
10 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 _____________________________
12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
13 WE CONCUR:
14 __________________________________
15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
16 __________________________________
17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
3
Contreras v. Miller Bonded
Combined Opinion