{
  "id": 716928,
  "name": "Joseph Charles APODACA, Claimant-Appellant, v. FORMWORK SPECIALISTS and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Respondents-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Apodaca v. Formwork Specialists",
  "decision_date": "1990-09-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 12271",
  "first_page": "778",
  "last_page": "780",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 N.M. 778"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "800 P.2d 212"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N.M. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2805038
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where employee had recovered from third party tortfeasor, he cannot justify suit for compensation against employer on ground that recovery from third party was inadequate"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "where employee had recovered from third party tortfeasor, he cannot justify suit for compensation against employer on ground that recovery from third party was inadequate"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555171
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "597"
        },
        {
          "page": "200"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0595-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.785,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.929295359159149e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3701849026719318
    },
    "sha256": "cdd804efd37e8e50d15d7277fc959c1b6ea3c901560ba520471097113cf07365",
    "simhash": "1:3a959d8dfe6dc3db",
    "word_count": 655
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:30.469339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BIVINS, C.J., and MINZNER, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Charles APODACA, Claimant-Appellant, v. FORMWORK SPECIALISTS and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Respondents-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nALARID, Judge.\nWorker appeals the denial of compensation benefits for an injury related to his job. Our first and second calendar notices proposed summary affirmance. Worker has filed memoranda in opposition to our calendar notices. We are not persuaded by worker\u2019s arguments that affirmation is not the correct disposition. Therefore, we affirm.\nWorker was injured in February 1986 while employed by Formwork Specialists (Formwork). Formwork provided workers\u2019 compensation benefits to worker through its insurer, Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (Mountain States). The general contractor for the construction at the time of worker\u2019s injury was Page & Wirtz Construction Company (Page). In February 1987, worker filed a workers\u2019 compensation claim seeking increased benefits based on his claim that Formwork failed to provide an adequate safety device. Worker was denied an increase in benefits.\nWorker filed a second workers\u2019 compensation claim in March 1988 for payment of medical services provided by Dr. Ronald Racca. At the same time, worker filed suit against Page for negligence. Mountain States intervened in that suit for reimbursement. Page filed a third-party action against Formwork, which was later dismissed. Mountain States and worker settled with Page for reimbursement. The stipulation for settlement provided that all claims and issues in the action were resolved.\nMountain States and Formwork sought to dismiss the workers\u2019 compensation claims, arguing that worker was not entitled to dual recovery under NMSA 1978, Section 52-l-56(C) (Orig.Pamp.). Worker claimed that NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-10.1 (Repl.Pamp.1987) applies to this case and allows worker to recover from a third party, and also pursue a workers\u2019 compensation claim against his employer. The workers\u2019 compensation judge dismissed worker\u2019s claims. Worker appealed.\nAs we have stated in our calendar notices, Section 52-1-10.1 clearly governs only the employer\u2019s right to reimbursement. This section requires that an employer\u2019s right to reimbursement be diminished by the percentage of fault attributed to employer where the employer is found to have proximately caused the injury to worker. See id. (if the fault of the worker\u2019s employer is found to have proximately caused the worker\u2019s injury, the employer\u2019s right to reimbursement from the proceeds of the worker\u2019s recovery in any action against any wrongdoer shall be diminished by the percentage of fault, if any, attributed to the employer). This section has no bearing on this case where worker is claiming workers\u2019 compensation benefits, and Section 52-1-10.1 applies only to employer\u2019s right to reimbursement.\nWorker is not entitled to dual recovery from his employer in order to make him whole under our workers\u2019 compensation laws. See \u00a7 52-1-56(C); see also Britz v. Joy Mfg. Co., 97 N.M. 595, 642 P.2d 198 (Ct.App.1982). Where a claimant has sought relief from a third party, the amount of the recovery is for the full loss or detriment suffered by the injured party and makes him financially whole, and thus any subsequent compensation claim is barred. Id. at 597, 642 P.2d at 200; see also Castro v. Bass, 74 N.M. 254, 392 P.2d 668 (1964) (where employee had recovered from third party tortfeasor, he cannot justify suit for compensation against employer on ground that recovery from third party was inadequate).\nWorker entered into a stipulated settlement with the third party, making him financially whole, and cannot subsequently claim compensation from his employer. Id. Worker received compensation benefits from employer, and in so doing, he surrendered his rights to any other form of compensation from employer. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 52-1-6(D) (Repl.Pamp.1987). For the reasons stated herein and in our calendar notices, we affirm the decision of the workers\u2019 compensation judge.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nBIVINS, C.J., and MINZNER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ALARID, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. Clear, III, Clear & Clear, P.A., Albuquerque, for claimant-\u00e1ppellant.",
      "Mark J. Riley, Padilla, Riley & Shane, P.A., Albuquerque, for respondents-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "800 P.2d 212\nJoseph Charles APODACA, Claimant-Appellant, v. FORMWORK SPECIALISTS and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Respondents-Appellees.\nNo. 12271.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 6, 1990.\nCertiorari Denied Oct. 17, 1990.\nThomas J. Clear, III, Clear & Clear, P.A., Albuquerque, for claimant-\u00e1ppellant.\nMark J. Riley, Padilla, Riley & Shane, P.A., Albuquerque, for respondents-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0778-01",
  "first_page_order": 806,
  "last_page_order": 808
}