{ "id": 17405, "name": "Sara SINGHAS, Plaintiff-Petitioner, and Dan Soriano, personal representative of the Estate of Veronica Soriano, deceased, and Michelle Soriano, through her father and next friend, Dan Soriano, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention-Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Singhas v. New Mexico State Highway Department", "decision_date": "1997-09-30", "docket_number": "No. 23084", "first_page": "42", "last_page": "45", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 N.M. 42" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "1997-NMSC-054" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "946 P.2d 645" } ], "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": "520 N.Y.S.2d 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 A.D.2d 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.2d", "case_ids": [ 5693894 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad2d/133/0740-01" ] }, { "cite": "503 N.Y.S.2d 964", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Misc.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc. 2d", "case_ids": [ 851624 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc2d/132/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 So.2d 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9569440 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/380/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 P.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Cal.App.2d 901", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2279056 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/97/0901-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 P.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Wash.2d 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1099470 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-2d/92/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "529 A.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 1362117 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-commw/108/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 Ga.App. 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga. App.", "case_ids": [ 476184 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/184/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 S.W.2d 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10160375 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/353/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "737 P.2d 771", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 Cal.Rptr. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Cal.3d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4628330 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/43/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 N.E.2d 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Mass.App.Ct. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass. App. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 3993731 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass-app-ct/24/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 N.W.2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 Mich.App. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich. App.", "case_ids": [ 2204736 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich-app/117/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 Wis.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8668320 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis-2d/143/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.Y.S.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 A.D. 1010", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 5336961, 5346149, 5350284, 5373331, 5336276, 5365654 ], "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/273/1010-01", "/ad/273/1010-04", "/ad/273/1010-06", "/ad/273/1010-05", "/ad/273/1010-03", "/ad/273/1010-02" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.Y.S.2d 866", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Misc. 897", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc.", "case_ids": [ 931380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc/188/0897-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 N.W. 714", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 Mich. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1858951 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/262/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 Pa.Super. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 159916 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/285/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N.M. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 322271 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "710" }, { "page": "1160" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/122/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2852320 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "405", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N.M. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 723217 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" }, { "page": "1242" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/113/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N.M. 728", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1597100 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731" }, { "page": "502" }, { "page": "503" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/107/0728-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1559005 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" }, { "page": "1080" }, { "page": "477" }, { "page": "1080" }, { "page": "480" }, { "page": "1083" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0474-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 589, "char_count": 10295, "ocr_confidence": 0.695, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.770820648634879e-08, "percentile": 0.40939124250101067 }, "sha256": "295db4254d33c2cfc7e450d9610aef8ae9f37ba8a1d89a31cc1dc77c7e0e28d9", "simhash": "1:79219541dfe714ef", "word_count": 1639 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:08:56.503190+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BACA and SERNA JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Sara SINGHAS, Plaintiff-Petitioner, and Dan Soriano, personal representative of the Estate of Veronica Soriano, deceased, and Michelle Soriano, through her father and next friend, Dan Soriano, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention-Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nFRANCHINI, Chief Justice.\n1 Veronica Soriano was killed, and her daughter Michelle and her co-worker Sara Singhas were injured, in an automobile accident on U.S. 180. Singhas, Dan Soriano as Personal Representative of the estate of his wife Veronica, and Michelle through Dan, her father, brought a complaint for personal injuries against the New Mexico Highway Department. Dan Soriano also filed an independent claim for loss of consortium. At the time of the accident both Singhas and Veronica Soriano were Public Defenders, travel-ling to a mental health task force meeting for the State of New Mexico Public Defender\u2019s Department. The trial court found that the Highway Department could not shelter itself from liability under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act\u2019s exclusive remedy provision, NMSA 1978, \u00a7 52-1-6(D) (1990), because it was a \u201cseparate legal entity\u201d from the Public Defender\u2019s Department. The Highway Department appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court holding that recovery against the Highway Department was prohibited under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act\u2019s exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals also held that Dan Soriano\u2019s claim for loss of consortium was barred under the exclusity provision. We granted certiorari, and affirm the Court of Appeals decision.\n2 Factual background and procedural history. Veronica Soriano and Singhas were driving in Soriano\u2019s truck to Las Cruces when Veronica Soriano attempted to pass a truck at a segmented-center-highway line. The truck turned left and the accident ensued. Veronica Soriano was killed. Singhas and Soriano\u2019s daughter, Michelle, who was also a passenger in Veronica Soriano\u2019s truck, were injured. The complaint alleged that the Highway Department was negligent in failing to properly stripe and place signs along the highway.\n3Singhas is receiving workers\u2019 compensation benefits from the State of New Mexico pursuant to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 52-1-1 to -70 (1929, as amended through 1993). Veronica Soriano\u2019s eligible dependents are receiving workers\u2019 compensation death benefits from the State of New Mexico pursuant to NMSA 1978, \u00a7 52-1-46 (1987) (providing compensation benefits for death). Section 52-1-46 (compensation benefits for death).\n4 The State of New Mexico is the employer under the Act. The Court of Appeals determined that the State of New Mexico, not the Public Defender\u2019s Department, was the employer of Singhas and Veronica Soriano for the purpose of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. Singhas and Soriano argue that the Highway Department and the Public Defender\u2019s Department should be considered as separate and independent for workers\u2019 compensation purposes. Under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act\u2019s exclusivity provision an employer\u2019s compliance with the Act results in\na surrender by the employer and the employee of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action at law, suit in equity or statutory or common-law right to remedy or proceeding what ever for or on account of such personal injuries or death of such employee than as provided in the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act____\nSection 52-l-6(D). Where a cause of action is based on an occurrence within the employment relationship, an action in tort by the employee against the employer is precluded by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. A holding that Singhas and Soriano were employed by the Public Defender\u2019s Department, and that the Highway Department is a separate employer, would mean that Singhas and Soriano could collect workers\u2019 compensation from the Public Defender\u2019s Department and also maintain a suit against the Highway Department.\n5 The Court of Appeals applied the exclusivity provision of the Act to bar all tort claims by employees of one state agency where the tortfeasor is another state agency. We agree with the Court of Appeals that \u201cas a matter of law\u201d the \u201cState is the employer.\u201d Singhas v. New Mexico Highway Dep\u2019t, 120 N.M. 474, 477, 902 P.2d 1077, 1080 (Ct.App.1995). See also NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 52-1-2 to -3 (1987) (defining employers who come within the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act). Section 52-1-3(D) specifically provides that \u201c[f]or purposes of this section, \u2018state\u2019 or \u2018state agency\u2019 means the State of New Mexico or any of its branches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions.\u201d\n6 The Court of Appeals held, and we agree, that it is \u201csignificant\u201d that \u201c[t]he legislature has not attempted to distinguish the various state agencies and departments from the State itself.\u201d Singhas, 120 N.M. at 477, 902 P.2d at 1080. Attempts in other jurisdictions to \u201csubdivide a [state or] municipality, and assert common-law rights on behalf of an employee of one ... department against a different ... department as if it were a stranger ... have ... been consistently unsuccessful.\u201d See 6 Arthur Larson, Workers\u2019 Compensation Law \u00a7 72.85(b) (1988). We believe the legislature intended that the State of New Mexico be considered the employer of all employees in its various \u201cbranches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions.\u201d Section 52-1-3(D).\n7 Singhas and Veronica Soriano argue that the \u201cDual Persona\u201d Doctrine, if applied to this case, provides an exception to the exclusivity rule. \u201cUnder the \u2018dual persona\u2019 Doctrine, an employer may become a third person, vulnerable to a tort suit by an employee, if, and only if, [the employer] possesses a second persona completely independent from and unrelated to [its] status as employer.\u201d Salswedel v. Enerpharm, Ltd., 107 N.M. 728, 731, 764 P.2d 499, 502 (Ct.App.1988) (citing 6 Larson, supra, at \u00a7 72.81 (1988)). \u201cThe central requirement is that there be a separate and distinct legal persona rather than merely a second theory of liability in the same person.\u201d Id. at 732, 764 P.2d at 503; see also 6 Larson, supra, at \u00a7 72.61(c).\n8 Because both Singhas and Veronica Soriano\u2019s dependents are receiving benefits from the State of New Mexico, and because Section 52-l-3(D) specifically provides that \u201c[f]or purposes of this section, \u2018state\u2019 or \u2018state agency\u2019 means the State of New Mexico or any of its branches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions,\u201d \u00a7 52-l-3(C), we hold that the \u201cDual Persona\u201d doctrine cannot provide an exception to the exclusivity rule in this case. Here the Public Defender\u2019s Department and the Highway Department are departments within the State of New Mexico. \u201cThe chief aim of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.\u201d Roth v. Thompson, 113 N.M. 331, 332, 825 P.2d 1241, 1242 (1992). We conclude that, under the Act, the legislature clearly intended that the State of New Mexico, and not the individual agency, be considered the employer for employees in all of its departments.\n9 A spouse may not bring an action for loss of consortium against the employer under the Act. We also affirm the Court of Appeals decision that \u201c[t]he cause of action for loss of consortium would be a remedy at law barred by the exclusivity provision.\u201d Singhas, 120 N.M. at 480, 902 P.2d at 1083. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Act prohibits this type of recovery on its face. The Act binds the employee \u201cand, for compensation for his death, shall bind his personal representative, his surviving spouse and next of kin.\u201d Section 52-l-6(D).\n10 We have said, in referring to an earlier version of the New Mexico Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, that \u201c[t]he language of the New Mexico statute is very restrictive and all embracing. It expressly limits the liability of the employer and abolishes all rights and remedies of every person whomsoever against the employer except as provided by the act.\u201d Roseberry v. Phillips Petroleum, Co., 70 N.M. 19, 21, 369 P.2d 403, 405 (1962) (citations omitted). In Archer v. Roadrunner Trucking Inc., 1997 NMSC 003 \u00b6 16, 122 N.M. 703, 710, 930 P.2d 1155, 1160, we held that \u201cthe Workers\u2019 Compensation Act bars an action for loss of consortium by the spouse of an injured worker.\u201d\n11 Conclusion. We affirm the Court of Appeals holding that the State of New Mexico was the employer of Singhas and Veronica Soriano for the purposes of the exclusivity provision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, that the \u201cDual Persona\u201d doctrine does not provide an exception to the exclusivity provision in this case, and that Dan Soriano\u2019s claim for loss of consortium is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\n12 IT IS SO ORDERED.\nBACA and SERNA JJ., concur.\n. See, e.g., Berger v. U.G.I. Corp., 285 Pa.Super. 374, 427 A.2d 1161 (1981); Bross v. City of Detroit, 262 Mich. 447, 247 N.W. 714 (1933); De Guiseppe v. City of New York, 188 Misc. 897, 66 N.Y.S.2d 866, (Sup.Ct.1946), aff'd, 273 A.D. 1010, 79 N.Y.S.2d 163 (1948); Henning v. General Motors Assembly Div., 143 Wis.2d 1, 419 N.W.2d 551 (1988); Holody v. City of Detroit, 117 Mich.App. 76, 323 N.W.2d 599 (1982); Holt v. City of Boston, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 175, 507 N.E.2d 766 (1987); Jones v. Kaiser Indus. Corp., 43 Cal.3d 552, 237 Cal.Rptr. 568, 737 P.2d 771 (1987); Osborne v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 373 (Ky.1962); Pulliam v. Richmond County Board of Comm\u2019rs, 184 Ga.App. 403, 361 S.E.2d 544 (1987); Sutmire v. Andrews, 108 Pa.Cmwlth. 90, 529 A.2d 68 (1987); Thompson v. Lewis County, 92 Wash.2d 204, 595 P.2d 541 (1979); Walker v. City & County of San Francisco, 97 Cal.App.2d 901, 219 P.2d 487 (1950); Wright v. Moore, 380 So.2d 172, 173 n. 1 (La.Ct.App.1979). But see, Lima v. Cty. of Rockland, 132 Misc.2d 447, 503 N.Y.S.2d 964 (Sup.Ct.1986), aff'd, 133 A.D.2d 740, 520 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1987).", "type": "majority", "author": "FRANCHINI, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Durkovich & Martinez, Stephen Durkovich, Kevin Martinez, Carpenter & Chavez, Ltd., Edward L. Chavez, David J. Stout, Albuquerque, for Petitioners.", "Bradley & McCulloch, P.A., Katherine E. Tourek, Lisa T. Mack, Albuquerque, for Defendants-Respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "1997-NMSC-054\n946 P.2d 645\nSara SINGHAS, Plaintiff-Petitioner, and Dan Soriano, personal representative of the Estate of Veronica Soriano, deceased, and Michelle Soriano, through her father and next friend, Dan Soriano, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention-Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Respondent.\nNo. 23084.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 30, 1997.\nDurkovich & Martinez, Stephen Durkovich, Kevin Martinez, Carpenter & Chavez, Ltd., Edward L. Chavez, David J. Stout, Albuquerque, for Petitioners.\nBradley & McCulloch, P.A., Katherine E. Tourek, Lisa T. Mack, Albuquerque, for Defendants-Respondent." }, "file_name": "0042-01", "first_page_order": 76, "last_page_order": 79 }