{ "id": 1561290, "name": "Craig D. TANNER, Claimant-Appellant, v. BOSQUE HONEY FARM, INC., Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Tanner v. Bosque Honey Farm, Inc.", "decision_date": "1995-04-25", "docket_number": "No. 15821", "first_page": "760", "last_page": "763", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "119 N.M. 760" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "895 P.2d 282" } ], "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": "117 P.2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631-32" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Wash.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2604185 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-2d/10/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 La. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 10026754, 1192685 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so/196/0023-01", "/la/195/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 So.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9893186, 9893046 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "839-41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/137/0838-02", "/so2d/137/0838-01" ] }, { "cite": "657 S.W.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 9943779 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467-68" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/657/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E.2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563943 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 P.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 2371556 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/197/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N.M. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1573222 ], "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" }, { "page": "536" }, { "page": "224" }, { "page": "536", "parenthetical": "when undisputed evidence indicates that worker involved in farm labor, worker has no cause of action for workers' compensation" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/94/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 P.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 4596282 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "626" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/182/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 716907 ], "weight": 19, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288" }, { "page": "93" }, { "page": "289" }, { "page": "94" }, { "page": "288" }, { "page": "93" }, { "page": "290" }, { "page": "95" }, { "page": "290" }, { "page": "95" }, { "page": "289" }, { "page": "94" }, { "page": "290" }, { "page": "95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "798 P.2d 1039", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 717014 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "689" }, { "page": "1075" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0683-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 671, "char_count": 12621, "ocr_confidence": 0.733, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.7736320596123955e-08, "percentile": 0.299323049336081 }, "sha256": "5a42aa790c0568e8ac8e192d18455985e09eaecb0dd85891843652ac5fc06230", "simhash": "1:c5671c46d86e9c64", "word_count": 2078 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:52.429175+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "ALARID and BOSSON, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Craig D. TANNER, Claimant-Appellant, v. BOSQUE HONEY FARM, INC., Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPICKARD, Judge.\nWorker appeals from an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint for workers\u2019 compensation. The sole issue on appeal is whether Worker was a \u201cfarm laborer\u201d for purposes of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 52-l-6(A) (Repl.Pamp.1991) (effective January 1, 1992). We hold that the workers\u2019 compensation judge did not err in finding that Worker was a farm laborer and dismissing Worker\u2019s complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.\nMany of the judge\u2019s findings are not challenged on appeal. Therefore, they are deemed true for purposes of our analysis. See SCRA 1986, 12-213(A)(3) (Cum.Supp. 1994); see also Sanchez v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 110 N.M. 683, 689, 798 P.2d 1069, 1075 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 653, 798 P.2d 1039 (1990). The findings not challenged are the following:\n1. Bosque Honey Farm, Inc. (\u201cEmployer\u201d), is engaged in the business of beekeeping and maintains a honey farm in Bosque Farm, New Mexico.\n2. Beekeeping is regulated by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture____\n3. Employer\u2019s beekeeping operation is regulated by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.\n4. Beekeeping is an important agricultural pursuit that produces a raw agricultural product, honey.\n5. Beekeeping provides pollination services essential for numerous seed, fruit and nut crops.\n6. Employer\u2019s farm is located on property zoned for agricultural use.\n7. The crop of honey is harvested upon Employer\u2019s farm, following completion of an extraction process.\n8. A \u201csuper\u201d is a wooden box that is removable from the bee hive. The super contains frames of honey combs. The bees produce and store honey in numerous cells on the frames. Once filled with honey, the bees typically seal the cells with bees wax.\n9. Extraction of honey from the frames is necessary to harvest honey: The harvest of honey requires:\n1. The bees wax layer is cut to uncap the cells;\n2. The frames are spun\u2019in a centrifuge to allow the honey to be thrown out of the cells;\n3. The honey is drained into a sump and pumped into storage tanks; and\n4. The honey is drained into barrels for storage or sale.\n10. Honey is not harvested until it has been extracted from the frames and collected in barrels or other containers and is ready for sale.\n11. At all times during his employment with Employer, Craig Tanner (\u201cWorker\u201d) worked as a beekeeper\u2019s assistant.\n12. Worker\u2019s primary job responsibility was to assist with the extraction of honey from the frames. Worker\u2019s job normally involved uncapping the frames, the first part of the extraction process.\n13. When Worker\u2019s job was complete, honey still remained in the cells of the frames and had yet to be harvested.\n14. The general nature of Worker\u2019s employment was to assist in the harvesting of honey.\n15. Worker\u2019s secondary job responsibilities included maintaining the bee hives, the honey farm and farm equipment.\n16. Worker\u2019s secondary job responsibilities are essential functions related to the harvesting of honey.\nInstead of attacking any of the above findings, Worker makes a general contention that because he did not participate in the cultivation or production of honey in the field, he should not be called a farm worker. We will treat this contention as a challenge to the judge\u2019s last finding, that \u201cWorker was employed by Employer as a farm laborer.\u201d\nThe Act provides that \u201c[t]he provisions of [the Act] shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants and farm and ranch laborers.\u201d Section 52-l-6(A). Worker contends that the judge erred in finding that he was a farm laborer for purposes of the Act.\nWhile no New Mexico case is directly on point, two cases are factually similar to the instant one and are instructive on the issue presented in this case. In the first, Holguin v. Billy the Kid Produce, Inc., 110 N.M. 287, 795 P.2d 92 (Ct.App.1990), the worker sorted the employer\u2019s onions in an onion shed, placing them into sacks. The shed was located on property that was owned by the employer, but was zoned as commercial property and was not crop-producing land. Id. at 288, 795 P.2d at 93. The Holguin court held that the worker was not a farm laborer because \u201c[the] worker\u2019s primary responsibilities were not performed on land where crops were grown, nor were his duties an essential part of the ... cultivation process such as irrigation or fertilization.\u201d Id. at 289, 795 P.2d at 94. Significant in Holguin is the fact that the court rejected an expansive definition of \u201cfarm laborer,\u201d one that would have included within its purview \u201c\u2018all things incident to farming in the widest sense of that term.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Anaya v. Industrial Comm'n, 512 P.2d 625, 626 (Colo.1973).\nThe Holguin court relied primarily upon the precedent established in Cueto v. Stahmann Farms, Inc., 94 N.M. 223, 608 P.2d 535 (Ct.App.1980). In Cueto, the worker\u2019s primary duty was to maintain a compost heap which was used to fertilize his employer\u2019s pecan trees located on the farming premises of the employer. Id. at 224, 608 P.2d at 536. The Cueto court held that the worker was a farm laborer because \u201c[t]he undisputed evidence in the record indicates that [workerj\u2019s primary responsibility was to manufacture fertilizer for fanning operations. This was done on the farming premises of [employer], and was an essential part of the cultivation of the pecans; it is farm labor under the exclusion.\u201d Id.\nAs the Holguin court observed, \u201c[w]hat is a \u2018farm laborer\u2019 within the meaning of the Act is a question of law. Whether a worker fits the definition is ordinarily a question of fact. If, however, the facts are undisputed, then the question becomes one purely of law.\u201d Holguin, 110 N.M. at 288, 795 P.2d at 93. In this case, the facts as set out above are undisputed. Therefore, the question that we must answer is whether Worker was a farm laborer under the undisputed facts as presented in this case. Id.\nIn contrast to Holguin, Worker was not merely sorting an agricultural product that was already harvested. Instead, he was participating in the harvesting itself on land on which some bees were kept for purposes of producing honey. Neither Holguin nor Cue-to addressed the question of whether harvesting was an essential part of cultivating crops.\nAlthough Holguin relied upon the fact that the worker was not involved with the cultivation of crops, id. at 290, 795 P.2d at 95, we do not think that the narrow definition of the farm labor exception endorsed by the Holguin court excludes persons involved in harvesting. Indeed, eases from other jurisdictions, some cited by Worker, that discuss a farm labor exception to their workers\u2019 compensation schemes, refer to the word \u201charvesting\u201d as being included in the term \u201cfarm labor.\u201d See, e.g., Hefley v. Morales, 595 P.2d 233, 235 (Colo.1979) (en banc); Hinson v. Creech, 286 N.C. 156, 209 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1974); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 657 S.W.2d 463, 467-68 (Tex.Ct.App.1983).\nOther cases, while not rejecting the concept that harvesting is included in the term \u201cfarm labor,\u201d focus on whether the product being handled by the worker has left the stage of agricultural production and entered the stage of \u201cindustrial processing.\u201d See, e.g., Dobbins v. S.A.F. Farms, Inc., 137 So.2d 838, 839-41 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962); Robichaux v. Realty Operators, Inc., 195 La. 70, 196 So. 23, 26 (1940); Cowiche Growers, Inc. v. Bates, 10 Wash.2d 585, 117 P.2d 624, 631-32 (1941). The focus on the distinction between farm labor and industrial processing is consistent with Professor Larson\u2019s discussion of the proper definition of farm labor:\nThe exemption of farm labor is construed according to the character of the work regularly performed by the employee, not according to the nature of the employer\u2019s business. But if a process performed on the farm is merely the first stage in the processing of a commodity by an industrial employer, such as a cannery or sugar refinery, the work may be held nonagrieultural.\n1C Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7 53.00 at 9-209 (1993). Thus, we follow these authorities and hold that harvesting is farm labor while processing is not.\nProfessor Larson also points out that activities incidental to farming, such as sorting potatoes, may be within the exemption. Id. \u00a7 53.33 at 9-225 to 9-226. However, we have expressly rejected Professor Larson\u2019s latter proposition insofar as it relates to activities incidental to farming that are conducted in a packing-house operation. Holguin, 110 N.M. at 290, 795 P.2d at 95. That is not to say that a worker is not a farm laborer simply because the worker\u2019s primary job responsibilities are conducted in a structure in which packing is also performed. We stressed in Holguin that whether a worker is a farm laborer is a determination to be made by reference to the \u201cgeneral character of the worker\u2019s work, rather than his activity on any particular day.\u201d Id. at 289, 795 P.2d at 94. We again point out that the dispositive factor in determining whether the worker is a farm laborer is the general character of the worker\u2019s work, and while the location on which a worker performs his work is a factor to be considered, id., it is not dispositive.\nIn the instant case, Employer does not argue, and the evidence at trial did not show, that Worker\u2019s primary job responsibilities were incidental to honey farming. Rather, Employer argues that they were an integral part of such farming. Neither of the parties directed us to any authority that would provide any guidance delineating what \u201charvesting\u201d is as a matter of law or at what point harvesting ends and processing begins. Nor were we able to find any such authority through our independent research. However, we need not answer that question in this case, as Worker testified at trial that the honey produced by Employer could not be extracted until Worker\u2019s primary job responsibility was completed. Moreover, Employer introduced at trial the deposition testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Gordon Waller. That uneontradicted testimony established that honey was not harvested until it was extracted. Just as an apple is not harvested until it is severed from the tree, the honey in this case was not harvested until it was severed from the frame. While there may be cases in which the evidence is conflicting on the question of whether a worker\u2019s primary job responsibilities are part of harvesting or processing, that scenario is not presented in this case. See Holguin, 110 N.M. at 290, 795 P.2d at 95.\nIn this case, the judge\u2019s conclusion that Worker was a farm laborer was based on the undisputed testimony that Worker\u2019s primary job responsibility was part of the harvesting process. Worker did not provide any evidence that would have pointed the judge to a contrary conclusion. Therefore, we find no error in the judge\u2019s determination that Worker was a farm laborer for purposes of the Act. See Cueto, 94 N.M. at 224, 608 P.2d at 536 (when undisputed evidence indicates that worker involved in farm labor, worker has no cause of action for workers\u2019 compensation).\nWe have also reviewed Employer\u2019s motion to dismiss Worker\u2019s appeal. Employer is correct in asserting that, under our rules of appellate procedure, Worker should have referred us to portions of Dr. Waller\u2019s deposition testimony. See SCRA 1986, 12-208(B)(3) (Repl.1992) and SCRA 1986, 12-213(A)(2) (Cum.Supp.1994) (docketing statement and briefs shall contain summary of all facts relevant to the issues presented for review). We did find the portion of Dr. Waller\u2019s deposition testimony that indicated that Worker was involved in harvesting to be essential to our disposition on appeal. However, Worker\u2019s brief in chief is directed at the Holguin court\u2019s holding that farm labor does not include every activity incidental to farming. As noted above, neither Holguin, Cueto, nor any of the out-of-state cases cited in this opinion directly addressed the issue of whether farm labor includes harvesting. In light of our reliance on this previously unconsidered distinction, Worker\u2019s failure to refer to that portion of Dr. Waller\u2019s deposition testimony that classified extraction of honey as harvesting is understandable. Employer\u2019s motion to dismiss Worker\u2019s appeal is denied.\nThe order dismissing with prejudice Worker\u2019s complaint for compensation is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nALARID and BOSSON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PICKARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Steven J. Clark, Peralta, for claimant-appellant.", "Gerald A. Hanrahan, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "895 P.2d 282\nCraig D. TANNER, Claimant-Appellant, v. BOSQUE HONEY FARM, INC., Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 15821.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 25, 1995.\nSteven J. Clark, Peralta, for claimant-appellant.\nGerald A. Hanrahan, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee." }, "file_name": "0760-01", "first_page_order": 852, "last_page_order": 855 }