{ "id": 1563442, "name": "Peter E. WASKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Wasko v. New Mexico Department of Labor", "decision_date": "1994-07-20", "docket_number": "No. 21775", "first_page": "82", "last_page": "85", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 N.M. 82" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "879 P.2d 83" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 N.M. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 725397 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284-85", "parenthetical": "recognizing that a clarification of existing law \"may properly be regarded as having retroactive effect\"" }, { "page": "987-88", "parenthetical": "recognizing that a clarification of existing law \"may properly be regarded as having retroactive effect\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/115/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N.M. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2821708 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" }, { "page": "1100" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/86/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5372643 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" }, { "page": "206" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 N.M. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 731602 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568" }, { "page": "818" }, { "page": "568" }, { "page": "818" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/114/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 L.Ed.2d 124", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 S.Ct. 1591", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "465 U.S. 1099", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11395168, 11395109, 11394887, 11395017, 11395274, 11395215, 11394707, 11395059, 11394805, 11394939, 11394747 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/465/1099-09", "/us/465/1099-08", "/us/465/1099-04", "/us/465/1099-06", "/us/465/1099-11", "/us/465/1099-10", "/us/465/1099-01", "/us/465/1099-07", "/us/465/1099-03", "/us/465/1099-05", "/us/465/1099-02" ] }, { "cite": "714 F.2d 887", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1886609 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "893" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/714/0887-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 N.W.2d 147", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10676761 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "149" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/319/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3304", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(15)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 516, "char_count": 11495, "ocr_confidence": 0.721, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.925906023282088e-08, "percentile": 0.5362478661883376 }, "sha256": "71fca5ead837975b96c57eef9cec85a502de5cf1e93bce0b1f108b580ca83a55", "simhash": "1:308c7e2779b08e78", "word_count": 1790 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:20.619055+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "MONTGOMERY, C.J. and RANSOM, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Peter E. WASKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nBACA, Justice.\nPetitioner-Appellant, Peter E. Wasko, appeals from a district court order affirming two decisions issued by Respondent-Appellee, the Employment Security Division of the New Mexico Department of Labor (the \u201cEmployment Division\u201d). The Employment Division held that Wasko\u2019s social security payments were deductible from state unemployment compensation benefits that he was receiving. On appeal, we address whether the trial court erred by affirming the decisions of the Employment Division. This issue raises the question of whether the 1993 amendment to NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-4(B)(3) (Repl.Pamp.1991) (the \u201c1991 version\u201d) (governing the monetary computation of unemployment compensation benefits), changed or clarified the law with respect to whether social security benefits are deductible from state unemployment compensation benefits. We review this ease pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-8(N) (Repl.Pamp.1993), SCRA 1986,1-081(B)(5) (Repl.Pamp.1992), and SCRA 1986,12-102(A)(6) (Repl.Pamp.1992), and reverse.\nI.\nOn April 3, 1992, Wasko was discharged by his employer, the New Mexico State Environment Department (the \u201cEnvironment Department\u201d). On January 10, 1993, Wasko filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The Employment Division initially decided that Wasko was eligible for a weekly benefit amount of $191 with maximum benefits payable of $4966. On February 25,1993, a claims examiner of the Employment Division determined that Wasko received \u201ca periodic payment from an employer whose wages were used to monetarily compute [his] present claim for unemployment compensation.\u201d (Capitalization in original omitted.) Under the 1991 version of Section 51-1-4(B)(3), the claims examiner reduced Wasko\u2019s weekly benefit amount to $116 and maximum benefits payable to $3016.\nWasko appealed the reduction of his benefits on March 11, 1993. A hearing was held on March 29, 1993. A hearing officer for the Employment Division found that Wasko was receiving a monthly social security payment of $646.60 and that his former employer, the Environment Department, had contributed to his social security \u201cby paying the employer\u2019s share of the FICA taxes.\u201d Consequently, the hearing officer affirmed the reduction of Wasko\u2019s benefits, concluding that this reduction was required under the 1991 version of Section 51-1-4(B)(3).\nOn April 28, 1993, the Employment Division issued a notice to Wasko informing him that, because of \u201ca change in Section 51 \u2014 1\u2014 4(B)(3) ... effective [April 4, 1993], social security benefits are no longer deductible from unemployment claims.\u201d (Capitalization in original omitted.) Effective the week ending April 10, 1993, the Employment Division reinstated Wasko\u2019s weekly benefit amount to $191 and increased the maximum benefits payable to $4141.\nAlthough the Employment Division reinstated his weekly benefit amount, Wasko appealed the temporary reduction of his benefits to the Employment Division\u2019s Board of Review (the \u201cBoard\u201d). In a written decision issued on May 10,1993, the Board noted that 1993 N.M. Laws, chapter 209, section 1, effective April 5,1993, \u201camended [NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-4(B)(3) (Repl.Pamp.1991)] to state that [s]ocial [s]ecurity payments are no longer deductible from unemployment compensation benefits.\u201d Presumably because the change to Section 51-1-4(B)(3) did not become effective until April 5, 1993, the Board affirmed the hearing officer\u2019s decision \u201cin its application to the claimant\u2019s benefit eligibility for weeks of unemployment prior to April 3,1993 and modified to eliminate the [s]ocial [s]ecurity payment deduction thereafter.\u201d On July 21, 1993, the Cabinet Secretary for the Department of Labor (the \u201cSecretary\u201d) filed a separate decision that affirmed the reduction of Wasko\u2019s weekly benefit amount \u201cfrom the date of his claim to the [week ending] April 10, 1993.\u201d\nWasko appealed these decisions to the district court. The court held a hearing on Wasko\u2019s appeal on August 20, 1993 and issued its final order on September 7, 1993. The court affirmed the decisions by the Board and the Secretary, finding that the decisions \u201care supported by substantial evidence in the record and are in accordance with the Unemployment Compensation Law.\u201d Wasko appealed his case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals transferred Wasko\u2019s case to this Court pursuant to Section 51-1-8(N), SCRA 1-081(B)(5), and SCRA 12-102(A)(6).\nII.\nOn appeal, we address whether the district court erred by affirming decisions of the Employment Division that held that Wasko\u2019s unemployment payments should be offset by his social security benefits for an eleven-week period prior to the effective date of the 1993 amendment to Section 51-1-4(B)(3). The issue of whether social security payments are deductible from unemployment benefits under the 1991 version of Section 51-1-4(B)(3) is a question of first impression in New Mexico. The 1991 version, in effect at the time Wasko filed for unemployment compensation benefits, states in pertinent part that\neach eligible individual who, pursuant to a plan financed in whole or in part by a base-period employer of such individual, is receiving a governmental or other pension, retirement pay, annuity or any other similar periodic payment that is based on the previous work of such individual and who is unemployed with respect to any week ending subsequent to April 9, 1981, shall be paid with respect to such week, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the secretary, compensation equal to his weekly benefit amount reduced, but not below zero, by the prorated amount of such pension, retirement pay, annuity or other similar periodic payment that exceeds the percentage contributed to the plan by the eligible individual.\nNMSA 1978, \u00a7 51-1-4(B)(3) (Repl.Pamp.1991) (emphasis added). The 1993 amendment to Section 51-1-4(B)(3) added the following language: \u201cIf payments referred to in this section are being received by any individual under the federal Social Security Act, the division shall take into account the individual\u2019s contribution and make no reduction in the weekly benefit amount.\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 51-1-4(B)(3) (Repl. Pamp.1993).\nResolution of the issue presented by Wasko\u2019s appeal turns on whether the 1993 amendment changed or clarified the existing law. Wasko contends that social security payments were never deductible from unemployment compensation payments under the 1991 version, and that the 1993 amendment was merely meant to clarify the preexisting meaning of the statute. The Employment Division argues that under state and federal case law interpreting similar statutes, social security benefits should be deducted from unemployment compensation payments under the 1991 version. The state and federal cases cited by the Employment Division interpret 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3304(a)(15) (1976), the federal predecessor to state statutes such as Section 51-1-4(B)(3). In interpreting Section 3304(a)(15) or similarly-worded state statutes, the cases either hold that the plain meaning of Section 3304(a)(15) or its legislative history require social security benefits be deducted from state unemployment compensation benefits. See, e.g., Olson v. Peterson (In re Olson), 319 N.W.2d 147, 149 (N.D.1982) (legislative history); Rivera v. Becerra, 714 F.2d 887, 893 (9th Cir.1983) (plain meaning), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1099, 104 S.Ct. 1591, 80 L.Ed.2d 124 (1984).\nWe hold that the 1993 amendment was meant to clarify the existing law rather than change the law. The state and federal cases cited by the Employment Division do not compel us to hold that the 1991 version required the deduction of social security benefits from unemployment compensation benefits. The law of statutory construction presumes that when the legislature amends a statute, it intends to change the existing law. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Binford, 114 N.M. 560, 568, 844 P.2d 810, 818 (1992); Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 75 N.M. 672, 681, 410 P.2d 200, 206 (1965), overruled on other grounds by Lakeview Invs., Inc. v. Alamogordo Lake Village, Inc., 86 N.M. 151, 155, 520 P.2d 1096, 1100 (1974). We recognize, however, that an amendment may clarify existing law, rather than change the law, if the statute was ambiguous or unclear prior to the amendment. Binford, 114 N.M. at 568, 844 P.2d at 818; 1A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction \u00a7 22.01, at 172 (5th ed. 1993) (\u201cIt must be remembered that when a statute is ambiguous, amendment of the statute may indicate a legislative purpose to clarify the ambiguities in the statute rather than to change the law\u201d).\nThe 1991 version is, on its face, ambiguous about whether social security benefits are deductible from unemployment compensation benefits. The statute provides that the eligible individual\u2019s weekly benefit amount be reduced by the prorated amount of the individual\u2019s pensions, retirement pay, annuities or \u201cother similar periodic payments.\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 51-1-4(B)(3) (Repl.Pamp.1991). The statute does not enumerate social security payments as an item to be deducted from unemployment compensation benefits, and it is otherwise unclear from the statute\u2019s language whether social security payments were intended to constitute pensions, retirement pay, annuities or \u201cother similar periodic payments\u201d for the purposes of calculating the weekly benefit amount. Considering the inherent ambiguity of the 1991 version, the fact that New Mexico appellate courts had not interpreted the statute, and the fact that a growing body of federal and state case law interpreted similar statutes to require the deduction of social security payments from unemployment compensation benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that the legislature intended the 1993 amendment to clarify the preexisting meaning of the statute rather than to change the law.\nBecause we hold that the 1993 amendment was meant to clarify the law, Wasko is entitled to $825 in benefits from the Employment Division. See Swink v. Fingado, 115 N.M. 275, 284-85, 850 P.2d 978, 987-88 (1993) (recognizing that a clarification of existing law \u201cmay properly be regarded as having retroactive effect\u201d). This amount is the additional amount of benefits that he would have received if the Employment Division had not reduced his weekly benefits from $191 to $116. We hold that the district court erred by affirming the decisions of the Employment Division. The district court order is vacated, and this case is remanded for entry of judgment in conformity with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMONTGOMERY, C.J. and RANSOM, J., concur.\n. Section 51-1-8(N) requires that appeals from a district court judgment reviewing final decisions of the Secretary of Labor or Board of Review on claims for unemployment compensation benefits be taken to the Supreme Court.\n. SCRA 1-081(B)(5) directs the parties to appeal district court judgments reviewing Secretary of Labor or Board of Review decisions to the Supreme Court.\n.SCRA 12-102(A)(6) requires that appeals be taken to the Supreme Court in any matter \"in which jurisdiction has been specifically reserved to the supreme court by the New Mexico Constitution or by supreme court order or rule.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "BACA, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Peter E. Wasko, pro se.", "Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Connie Reischman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Albuquerque, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "879 P.2d 83\nPeter E. WASKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 21775.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 20, 1994.\nPeter E. Wasko, pro se.\nTom Udall, Atty. Gen., Connie Reischman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Albuquerque, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0082-01", "first_page_order": 118, "last_page_order": 121 }