{ "id": 4077906, "name": "MARSHALL MASSENGILL, Worker-Appellee, v. FISHER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Employer/Insurer-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Massengill v. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co.", "decision_date": "2013-10-17", "docket_number": "No, 34,328; Docket No. 31,942", "first_page": "97", "last_page": "103", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2013-NMCA-103" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 N.M. 639", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 725463 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/115/0639-01" ] }, { "cite": "1993-NMCA-066", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.M. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2736110 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/79/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "1968-NMSC-076", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 6" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 707494 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "1988-NMCA-003", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 35" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.M. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 725471 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/115/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "1993-NMSC-017", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 3" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.M. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 723241 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/113/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "1992-NMSC-005", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.M. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1563607 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/118/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "1994-NMCA-091", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.M. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 720219 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/112/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "1991-NMSC-093", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.M. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 720275 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/112/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "1991-NMCA-028", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 49" }, { "page": "\u00b6 54" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.M. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1592762 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/108/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "1989-NMCA-031", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 2" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 717012 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "1990-NMSC-042", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 8-10" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2009-NMSC-032", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4243724 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/146/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMSC-031", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 3670086 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/140/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "2011-NMSC-034", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4250635 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/150/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 P.3d 903", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2011-NMCERT-009", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCERT", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2011-NMCA-103", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4250246 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/150/0629-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 766, "char_count": 16563, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.12973922417870695 }, "sha256": "acdbc542c75a97c0336ff49f503dc6c50203cd142bcfc59579c57de6e9cab08e", "simhash": "1:e1c512ddc2457b69", "word_count": 2709 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:28:15.201030+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge", "JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge", "J. MILES HANISEE, Judge" ], "parties": [ "MARSHALL MASSENGILL, Worker-Appellee, v. FISHER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Employer/Insurer-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nVIGIL, Judge.\n{1} The primary issue in this workers\u2019 compensation case is whether post-judgment interest begins to accrue on the date that an order is filed awarding a partial lump-sum payment or thirty days later. Concluding that interest begins to accrue on the date the award is filed, and rejecting Employer\u2019s remaining arguments, we affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\n{2} While Worker\u2019s complaint for compensation benefits was pending, Worker \u2022 filed a petition for a partial lump-sum payment. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 52-5-12(C) (2009) (\u201cAfter maximum medical improvement and with the approval of the workers\u2019 compensation judge, a worker may elect to receive a partial lump-sum payment of workers\u2019 compensation benefits for the sole purpose of paying debts that may have accumulated during the course of the injured or disabled worker\u2019s disability.\u201d). Worker had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), and he was receiving permanent partial disability (PPD), but a final determination of his PPD benefits had not yet been made.\n{3} On December 30, 2011, the workers\u2019 compensation judge (WCJ) entered an order granting Worker\u2019s petition and awarded Worker a partial lump-sum payment of $23,150. Worker received a check from Employer/Insurer (hereinafter Employer) for the amount due on the partial lump-sum award on January 26, 2012. As a result of the delay, Worker filed an application for a supplementary compensation order, requesting post-judgment interest on the partial lump-sum award and other relief not pertinent here. The WCJ awarded Worker post-judgment interest commencing when the order for the partial lump-sum amount was filed and ending when Employer tendered the payment. Employer appeals.\n{4} Employer contends that the WCJ erred when it awarded interest on the partial lump-sum payment as of the date the order was ' filed. Employer makes four arguments: (1) the order for payment of a partial lump-sum award was not operative until thirty days after it was filed; (2) an order for payment of a partial lump sum is not a final order to which post-judgment interest attaches; (3) the time fixed for payment of a partial lump-sum amount is not the date the compensation order is filed; and (4) awarding post-judgment interest on a partial lump-sum payment is inequitable. We are unpersuaded and affirm.\nII. ANALYSIS\n{5} NMSA 1978, Section 56-8-4(A) (2004) directs that \u201c[ijnterest shall be allowed on judgments and decrees for the payment of money from entry and shall be calculated at the rate of eight and three-fourths percent per year,\u201d and we have held that an award of post-judgment interest on a workers\u2019 compensation order under Section 56-8-4(A) is mandatory. Martinez v. Pojoaque Gaming, Inc., 2011-NMCA-103, \u00b6 24, 150 N.M. 629, 264 P.3d 725, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-009, 269 P.3d 903. Employer\u2019s arguments that Section 56-8-4(A) does not apply to the order for a partial lump-sum payment in this case require us to engage in statutory interpretation.\n{6} Statutory interpretation is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. Att'y Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2011-NMSC-034, \u00b6 10, 150 N.M. 174, 258 P.3d 453. We look first to the plain meaning of the statute\u2019s words, and we construe the provisions of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (the Act) together to produce a harmonious whole. Grine v. Peabody Natural Res., 2006-NMSC-031, \u00b6 17, 140 N.M. 30, 139 P.3d 190. If we are unable to definitively interpret the statute by a simple consideration of the statutory language, we may consider principles of statutory construction to \u201cconstrue a statute according to its obvious spirit or reason.\u201d Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 2009-NMSC-032, \u00b6 29, 146 N.M. 453, 212 P.3d 341 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We now turn to Employer\u2019s specific arguments.\nA. Effective Date of the Order\n{7} Employer asserts that a compensation order under the Act is not operative until thirty days after it is mailed to the parties. Therefore, Employer contends, the W C J erred in awarding interest from the date the order awarding a partial lump-sum payment was filed. We disagree.\n{8} In asserting that the order was not effective until thirty days after it was mailed, Employer relies upon NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-7(C) (1993) of the Act. This statute provides:\nThe decision of the workers\u2019 compensation judge shall be final and conclusive as to all matters adjudicated by him upon the expiration of the thirtieth day after a copy of the decision has been mailed to the parties, unless prior to that day a party in interest seeks judicial review of the decision pursuant to Section 52-5-8 NMSA 1978.\nWhile the statute does not expressly so state, Employer argues that it is designed to provide for a period of thirty days to make a payment ordered by the WCJ without penalty, including interest. However, the plain language of the statute belies Employer\u2019s interpretation. If it was the intent of the Legislature to implicitly grant a grace period of thirty days to make a payment ordered by the WCJ, the statute would not also expressly state that the thirty-day grace period terminates with the filing of a notice of appeal.\n{9} Contrary to Employer\u2019s arguments, we conclude that Section 52-5-7(C) means that the decision of the WCJ \u201cshall be final and conclusive as to all matters adjudicated\u201d by the WCJ thirty days after the decision is filed unless an appeal is taken \u201cpursuant to Section 52-5-8.\u201d In arriving at this conclusion, we construe the word \u201cmailed\u201d in the statute to mean \u201cfiled.\u201d We' do so because of its reference to Section 52-5-8.\n{10} The Act states in Section 52-5-8(A) that \u201c[a]ny party in interest may, within thirty days of mailing of the final order of the workers\u2019 compensation judge, file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals.\u201d The statute also states that \u201c[a] decision ofaworkers\u2019 compensation judge is reviewable by the court of appeals in the manner provided for other cases[.]\u201d Section 52-5-8(33). In Maples v. State, 1990-NMSC-042, \u00b6\u00b6 8-10, 110 N.M. 34, 791 P.2d 788, our Supreme Court noted a possible conflict between Section 52-5-8(A) and Rule 12-601 NMRA (2007) in that the statute provides for an appeal within thirty days of the mailing of an order, and the rule provides for an appeal within thirty days of the filing of an order. The Court held that Rule 12-601 takes precedence over any conflict with Section 52-5-8. Maples, 1990-NMSC-042, \u00b6 10; see Tzortzis v. Cnty. of Los Alamos, 1989-NMCA-031, \u00b6 2, 108 N.M. 418, 773 P.2d 363 (holding that \u201c[wjhen a statute governing the time for appeal conflicts with a supreme court rule, the rule governs\u201d).\n{11} Section 52-5-7(C) and Section 52-5-8(A) were both enacted at the same time in the same bill. 1986 N.M. Laws, ch. 22, \u00a7\u00a7 33, 34. Reading these statutes together, we conclude that the Legislature\u2019s intent was to express in Section 52-5-7(C) that the decision of the WC J is \u201cfinal and conclusive\u201d as to all matters adjudicated by the W C J after the time for appealing has expired and that the Legislature expressed its intent in Section 52-5-8(A) that the time for appealing expires within thirty days. In keeping with Maples, and construing the statutes in harmony with each other, we hold that the Legislature\u2019s intention is expressed by construing \u201cmailed\u201d in Section 52-5-7(C) to mean \u201cfiled.\u201d\n{12} Employer also asks us to consider the effect of NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-10(A) (1990) as to when interest begins to accrue on a WCJ order awarding a partial lump-sum payment under the Act. In pertinent part, Section 52-5-10(A) provides that where there is a default in payment of compensation due under the Act, the person owed the payment may \u201cmake application [to the director of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Administration (WCA)] for a supplementary compensation order declaring the amount of compensation in default\u201d provided it is filed \u201cafter the thirtieth day\u201d on which the payment was due, and \u201cbefore the lapse of one year from that due date[.j\u201d Id. Section 52-5-10(B) sets forth remedies that then become available in the district court to correct the default. Section 52-5-10(A) has no bearing on when interest begins to accrue on an order under the Act, and we reject Employer\u2019s suggestion that it has any applicability to the issue before us here.\nB. Award of a Partial Lump Sum as a \u201cFinal Order\u201d\n{13} Employer argues that post-judgment interest is only allowed on a \u201cfinal order\u201d under Section 56-8-4(A). From this premise, Employer contends that because Worker\u2019s PPD benefits still had to be determined, the partial lump-sum award is not a \u201cfinal order\u201d and the award of interest must be reversed. We agree with Employer that post-judgment interest is only allowed on a \u201cfinal order\u201d but we disagree with Employer\u2019s assertion that the order awarding a partial lump-sum payment does not constitute a \u201cfinal order.\u201d\n{14} Prior to Sanchez v. Siemens Transmission Systems, 1991-NMCA-028, 112 N.M. 236, 814 P.2d 104, rev'd on other grounds, 1991-NMSC-093, 112 N.M. 533, 817 P.2d 726, workers\u2019 compensation cases were decided in district court, but with passage of the Act, workers\u2019 compensation cases were moved to the WCA and decided by a workers\u2019compensation judge. Id. \u00b6 50. In Sanchez we were presented with the question of whether a compensation order made by a WCJ under the Act earns interest under Section 56-8-4. Sanchez, 1991-NMCA-028, \u00b6 49. We saw \u201cno reason why the same rationale for allowing post-judgment interest in workers\u2019 compensation cases in district courts would not apply to administrative decisions evolving from the WCA[,]\u201d and \u201c[w]hether a final decision evolves from the district court or from the WCA is not a valid distinction}.]\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 54-55. Thus, we held that \u201cthere is a legislative intent to apply Section 56-8-4 to final compensation orders.\u201d Sanchez, 1991-NMCA-028, \u00b6 54. We therefore must address whether the partial lump-sum award in this case constitutes a \u201cfinal order\u201d or \u201cfinal decision,\u201d which properly earns post-judgment interest under Section 56-8-4(A).\n{15} We begin by analyzing the nature of an award for a partial lump-sum. \u201cIt is stated policy for the administration of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act . . . that it is in the best interest of the injured worker or disabled employee that the worker or employee receive benefit payments on a periodic basis.\u201d Section 52-5-12(A). However, \u201c[a]fter maximum medical improvement and with the approval of the workers\u2019 compensation judge, a worker may elect to receive a partial lump-sum payment of workers\u2019 compensation benefits for the sole purpose of paying debts that may have accumulated during the course of the injured or disabled worker\u2019s disability.\u201d Section 52-5-12(C). Section 52-5-12(C) \u201cdeals with the exceptional case when a lump-sum payment, rather than periodic payment, may be necessary to avoid extreme hardship\u201d such that \u201cthe purpose of such a payment is need, rather than convenience!)]\u201d Cabazos v. Calloway Constr., 1994-NMCA-091, \u00b6 13, 118 N.M. 198, 879 P.2d 1217.\n{16} We are not convinced that Worker\u2019s outstanding final determination of PPD benefits makes the order granting the partial lump-sum award a non-final judgment. In Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, our Supreme Court said, \u201cWhere a judgment declares the rights and liabilities of the parties to the underlying controversy, a question remaining to be decided thereafter will not prevent the judgment from being final if resolution of that question will not alter the judgment or moot or revise decisions embodied therein.\u201d 1992-NMSC-005, \u00b6 21, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 1033. In a workers\u2019 compensation case, our Supreme Court explained the rationale for Kelly Inn.\n[T]he term \u201cfinality\u201d is to be given a practical, rather than a technical, construction to satisfy the policies of facilitating meaningful appellate review and of achieving judicial efficiency. These policies may be served by appeals from judgments declaring the rights and liabilities of the parties to the underlying controversy when resolution of supplemental questions will not alter the judgment or moot or revise decisions embodied therein.\nTrujillo v. Hilton of Santa Fe, 1993-NMSC-017, \u00b6 3, 115 N.M. 397, 851 P.2d 1064. The Supreme Court added that \u201c[ijssues \u2018collateral to\u2019 and \u2018separate from\u2019 the decision on the merits fall within a twilight zone of similarity to proceedings that carry out or give effect to the judgment.\u201d Id. As to issues falling in this \u201ctwilight zone,\u201d the Court said: \u201c[A] party should be allowed to choose the appropriate time for appeal, guided by considerations in the trial court that impact on meaningful and efficient appellate review.\u201d Id. \u00b6 5.\n{17} Applying the foregoing principles, we conclude that the pending decision on Worker\u2019s unresolved PPD benefits does not render the partial lump-sum award a non-final decision. Employer does not contest the propriety of the lump-sum award, nothing more needs to be determined in relation to the lump-sum award, and Employer makes no argument that the ultimate award of PPD benefits will have any effect on the lump-sum award. Moreover, we note that Section 56-8-4(A) provides for the payment -of post-judgment interest on \u201cjudgments and decrees for the payment of money from entry.\u201d The order approving the partial lump-sum amount has decretal language indicating that it is a judgment for the payment of money and Employer makes no argument suggesting otherwise. For the foregoing reasons, we reject Employer\u2019s argument that the partial lump-sum award is not a \u201cfinal order,\u201d which accrues post-judgment interest under Section 56-8-4(A).\nC. Date Fixed for Payment\n{18} Employer argues that because a partial lump-sum award is an acceleration of future periodic payments of compensation benefits, the time fixed for payment is the date each of the periodic payments would otherwise have been due. Thus, Employer asserts, interest did not commence upon the filing of the order, but commences on each payment as it would have been otherwise due. See Mares v. Valencia Cnty. Sheriff\u2019s Dep\u2019t, 1988-NMCA-003, \u00b6 35, 106 N.M. 744, 749 P.2d 1123 (\u201c[A]ny award of post[-]judgment interest . . . does not commence to run upon unaccrued compensation benefits until the time fixed for its payment.\u201d). We disagree. A lump-sum award replaces periodic payments with a discounted lump-sum amount and, as we have already discussed, the due date for payment of the partial lump sum is the date the order is filed approving the partial lump-sum award.\nD. Order for Interest as Inequitable\n{19} We are also not persuaded by Employer\u2019s final argument that the award of post-judgment interest was inequitable because it punishes Employer for not having payment ready on the date of entry for money that Worker is not yet entitled to. We reject Employer\u2019s argument.\n{20} Section 56-8-4(A) expressly directs that interest \u201cshall be allowed\u201d on a judgment or decree for the payment of money \u201cfrom entry.\u201d Thus, our Legislature has expressly declared that all such judgments and decrees shall earn interest from the date of filing, and no exception is stated for workers\u2019 compensation cases. Moreover, since at least 1968, our Supreme Court has declared that \u201cinterest is compensation allowed by law . . . for the use of money belonging to another.\u201d Bank of N.M. v. Earl Rice Constr. Co., 1968-NMSC-076, \u00b6 6, 79 N.M. 115, 440 P.2d 790. We have similarly observed in Folz v. State, 1993-NMCA-066, \u00b6 10, 115 N.M. 639, 857 P.2d 39, that \u201c[pjost-judgment interest is intended to prevent the inequity of denying the prevailing party the cost of the lost opportunity of using the money that the judgment debtor had use of during the pendency of the appeal.\u201d We see no reason why the equities in a workers\u2019 compensation case should differ from any other case.\nIII. CONCLUSION\n{21} The order of the workers\u2019 compensation judge is affirmed.\n{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nMICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge\nWE CONCUR:\nJONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge\nJ. MILES HANISEE, Judge\nIn 1989, Section 52-5-8(A) was amended to substitute \u201cworkers\u2019 compensation judge\u201d for \u201chearing officer.\u201d 1989 N.M. Laws, ch. 263, \u00a7 7.", "type": "majority", "author": "VIGIL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "James Rawley Albuquerque, NM for Appellee", "Hale & Dixon, P.C. Timothy S. Hale Paulette J. Dixon Albuquerque, NM for Appellants" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Certiorari Denied, October 17, 2013,\nNo, 34,328\nIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2013-NMCA-103\nFiling Date: August 19, 2013\nDocket No. 31,942\nMARSHALL MASSENGILL, Worker-Appellee, v. FISHER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Employer/Insurer-Appellants.\nJames Rawley Albuquerque, NM for Appellee\nHale & Dixon, P.C. Timothy S. Hale Paulette J. Dixon Albuquerque, NM for Appellants" }, "file_name": "0097-01", "first_page_order": 113, "last_page_order": 119 }