{
  "id": 711274,
  "name": "Randol NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Employer, and Argonaut Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Development Co.",
  "decision_date": "1985-09-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8759",
  "first_page": "393",
  "last_page": "394",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 N.M. 393"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "707 P.2d 1203"
    }
  ],
  "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": "83 N.M. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5333804
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.M. 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1584679
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/99/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571161
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N.M. 759",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582513
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/98/0759-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573239
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.M. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1584642
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/99/0407-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 4429,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.806,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.108372274774371e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5063208318322806
    },
    "sha256": "4e9c3488d69e7a3b6ad7a49f2d001fc44d5af40a684ba8c859af4be69426b4e0",
    "simhash": "1:3713963e4580865a",
    "word_count": 673
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:32.898300+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BIVINS and GARCIA, JJ\u201e concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Randol NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Employer, and Argonaut Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s claim for worker\u2019s compensation benefits was settled. The claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was excluded from the settlement and submitted to the trial court for decision. The trial court denied rehabilitation benefits. Plaintiff appealed. This court proposed summary affirmance of the trial court. Plaintiff has timely opposed summary affirmance; his memorandum makes two arguments: (1) that he is unable to return to his former job and, thus, is entitled to rehabilitation benefits; and (2) the remedial policy of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act and the interest in rehabilitation of workers requires a liberal policy in the award of rehabilitation benefits.\nNMSA 1978, Section 52-1-50 (Cum.Supp. 1984) provides that a worker \u201cshall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services ... as may be necessary to restore him to suitable employment where he is unable to return to his former job. The court shall determine whether a disabled employee needs vocational rehabilitation services * sfc *\nThe parties stipulated, and the trial court found, that plaintiff was unable to return to his former work as a security guard. Plaintiff\u2019s claim, that because he cannot return to his former job an award of rehabilitation benefits is required, ignores the above-quoted statutory language. The trial court must determine the need for the rehabilitation benefits and the need depends on whether the benefits are necessary to restore the worker to suitable employment. We may not ignore the statutory language to effect a policy not covered by the statute. Lent v. Employment Security Commission of the State of New Mexico, 99 N.M. 407, 658 P.2d 1134 (Ct.App.1982); Newhoff v. Good Housekeeping, Inc., 94 N.M. 621, 614 P.2d 33 (Ct.App.1980), affirmed in Hise Construction v. Candelaria, 98 N.M. 759, 652 P.2d 1210 (1982). Plaintiff contends the statutory language is mandatory. Our answer is that rehabilitation benefits \u201cnecessary to restore him [the worker] to suitable employment\u201d is part of the mandatory language. Ruiz v. City of Albuquerque, 91 N.M. 526, 577 P.2d 424 (Ct.App.1978).\nPlaintiff had the burden of establishing the need for rehabilitation benefits. Garcia v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 99 N.M. 741, 663 P.2d 1198 (Ct.App.1983). The trial court found:\n5. That at the time of the accident plaintiff was earning approximately $700 per month gross.\n6. That plaintiff and wife now are co-managers of a condominium complex in Los Alamos, New Mexico. They recieve [sic] wages of $1,250 per month, and are furnished a rent free apartment valued at $500 per month for a total compensation of $1,750 for their services.\n7. That plaintiff's current employment includes overseeing maintenance, some bookkeeping and other matters in regard to the business of the complex.\n8. That plaintiff appears to have job security.\nPlaintiff is not in a position to complain of these findings of the trial court, which are based on plaintiff\u2019s own requested findings. See Platero v. Jones, 83 N.M. 261, 490 P.2d 1234 (Ct.App.1971). Plaintiff does not complain of these findings. His theory, revealed in another requested finding, is that he seeks rehabilitation benefits in order to obtain an associate\u2019s degree in business management.\nPlaintiff believes that additional education will benefit him directly as follows: he will receive additional wages; he will be better able to perform his duties as manager of Ridge Park Village Condominiums; and he will significantly enhance his opportunities for advancement within the Mac Davis Corporation in the future.\nThe statute does not provide for rehabilitation benefits for these reasons; the statute requires a need for rehabilitation benefits. The trial court\u2019s findings are to the effect that there is no need for rehabilitation benefits. The trial court properly denied the request for rehabilitation benefits under the facts of this case.\nThe order denying the motion for rehabilitation benefits is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nBIVINS and GARCIA, JJ\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Catherine Gordon, Duhigg & Cronin, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Sarah M. Bradley, Bradley & McCulloch, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "707 P.2d 1203\nRandol NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Employer, and Argonaut Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 8759.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 17, 1985.\nCatherine Gordon, Duhigg & Cronin, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nSarah M. Bradley, Bradley & McCulloch, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0393-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}