{
  "id": 1586434,
  "name": "Epimenio LUCERO, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. NORTHRIP LOGGING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Nationwide Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lucero v. Northrip Logging Co.",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7444",
  "first_page": "420",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 N.M. 420"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "683 P.2d 1342"
    }
  ],
  "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": "256 N.W. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 Minn. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        1755498
      ],
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/192/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 392",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321330
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0392-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.M. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841142
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/49/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 P.2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.M. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.M. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2837200
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0116-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 789",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5334147
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0789-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 399,
    "char_count": 6464,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.791,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.998765029887039e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4229039994223601
    },
    "sha256": "fb77c306c04cd389e1dc027542ef9e08a710b9aed6a52358870aa0180ef5a2e7",
    "simhash": "1:6a2be8a37c120d41",
    "word_count": 1009
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:52.435207+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DONNELLY, C.J., and ALARID, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Epimenio LUCERO, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. NORTHRIP LOGGING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Nationwide Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nNEAL, Judge.\nIn this case the employer died and the workman filed a workmen\u2019s compensation action. The action was timely filed under NMSA 1978, Section 52-l-31(A) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, but untimely filed under NMSA 1978, Section 45-3-803(B) of the Probate Code. Which limitation period applies?\nThe defendant moved for summary judgment based on Section 45-3-803(B). The trial court denied the motion and the defendant brought this interlocutory appeal.\nThe plaintiff was employed by Northrip Logging Company, a sole proprietorship run by Oran Northrip. Oran Northrip died on April 5, 1981. On April 20, 1981, his wife, Pansy Northrip, was appointed personal representative, and continued to run the business.\nOn May 8, 1981, the plaintiff was injured while working for Northrip Logging. In its amended answer Northrip Logging states that it paid the plaintiff compensation benefits to March 11, 1982. Northrip Logging is self-insured; Nationwide Insurance Company received summary judgment and is not involved in this appeal.\nOn October 20, 1982, the plaintiff filed this workmen\u2019s compensation action based on the May 8, 1981 accident. The defendant denies that the plaintiff has a claim, but assumes that if he does, it began on March 11, 1982, when benefits stopped. The plaintiff does not agree with this, arguing that he was not aware that he had a compensable injury until much later. However, for this appeal we assume, but do not decide, that he had a claim on March 11, 1982.\nThe Limitations Period.\nSummary judgment is proper if \u201cthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. NMSA 1978, Civ.P.R. 56(c) (Repl.Pamp.1980); Goodman v. Brock, 83 N.M. 789, 498 P.2d 676 (1972).\nThe defendant contends that Section 45-3-803(B) of the Probate Code bars this action and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That section states:\nB. All claims against a decedent\u2019s estate which arise at or after the death of the decedent, including claims of the state and any subdivision thereof, whether due or to become due, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, founded on contract, tort or other legal basis, are barred against the estate, the personal representative and the heirs and devisees of the decedent, unless presented as follows:\n* * * * *\n(2) Any other claim, within four months after it arises.\nThe defendant argues that the workman\u2019s claim, filed October 20, 1982, was brought more than four months after it arose.\nSection 52-l-31(A) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, with an exception not applicable here, gives the workman one year to file his claim against \u201can employer or his insurer.\u201d Under this section the filing was timely.\nWhen two statutes conflict the special statute controls over the general statute, unless it is clear that the Legislature intended to make the general act controlling. State v. Wilkins, 88 N.M. 116, 537 P.2d 1012 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 88 N.M. 319, 540 P.2d 249 (1975). It is also true that workmen\u2019s compensation statutes are sui generis and create rights, remedies and procedures which are exclusive. Lipe v. Bradbury, 49 N.M. 4, 154 P.2d 1000 (1945).\nIn this situation we have a workman bringing a workmen\u2019s compensation action against his employer and the workmen\u2019s compensation statute is the special statute. The Probate Code refers to claims against the \u201cdecedent\u2019s estate\u201d or \u201cpersonal representative,\u201d and is the general statute. Does the Probate Code indicate that the Legislature intended to make it, the general statute, controlling?\nBecause the workmen\u2019s compensation statutes create exclusive rights, remedies, and procedures we presume that the special workmen\u2019s compensation limitation applies, unless the Legislature clearly indicates otherwise. State v. Wilkins. We do not believe that Section 45-3-803(B) of the Probate Code evidences a clear legislative intent that it should apply to this situation.\nThe Probate Code language is quite broad, providing that \u201call claims * * * founded on contract, tort, or other legal basis, are barred against the estate [and] the personal representative * * *.\u201d (Emphasis added.) This language is strong, however, in holding that the workmen\u2019s compensation statute applies, we concentrate on the target of the claim.\nSection 52-l-31(A) refers to suits against the \u201cemployer.\u201d We find it significant that \u201cemployer\u201d, defined in NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-15, includes \u201cthe legal representatives of a deceased employer.\u201d That covers this situation. The Probate Code section refers to claims against the \u201cdecedent\u2019s estate\u201d, or the \u201cpersonal representative.\u201d In light of the definition of \u201cemployer\u201d we cannot say that the Legislature intended that the Probate Code limitation period apply here. The language \u201cor other legal basis\u201d in Section 45-3-803(B) concerns the basis of the claim rather than the target of the claim. We consider the latter to be more important.\nThe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is remedial legislation designed to compensate injured workmen. Casados v. Montgomery Ward Co., 78 N.M. 392, 432 P.2d 103 (1967). The policy behind the four-month limitation in the Probate Code is to promote prompt closing of estates, Section 45-1-102, however, we cannot believe the Legislature would compromise an injured workman\u2019s right to redress in favor of speedy administration of estates.\nFinally, we are not persuaded by the defendant\u2019s reliance on Stitz v. Ryan, 192 Minn. 297, 256 N.W. 173 (1934). That case involved completely different facts and is not on point.\nThe trial court\u2019s denial of summary judgment is affirmed.\nThe defendant shall pay the costs of this appeal and plaintiff\u2019s attorney fees in the amount of $800.00.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nDONNELLY, C.J., and ALARID, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "NEAL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matthew L. Chacon, Espa\u00f1ola, for plaintiff-appellant Epimenio Lucero.",
      "Edmund H. Kendrick, Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee Nationwide Ins. Co.",
      "John L. Lenssen, Caldwell, Lenssen, Mandel & Jesmer, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant Northrip Logging Co."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "683 P.2d 1342\nEpimenio LUCERO, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. NORTHRIP LOGGING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Nationwide Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 7444.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 5, 1984.\nCertiorari Denied July 19, 1984.\nMatthew L. Chacon, Espa\u00f1ola, for plaintiff-appellant Epimenio Lucero.\nEdmund H. Kendrick, Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee Nationwide Ins. Co.\nJohn L. Lenssen, Caldwell, Lenssen, Mandel & Jesmer, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant Northrip Logging Co."
  },
  "file_name": "0420-01",
  "first_page_order": 454,
  "last_page_order": 456
}