{
  "id": 2856106,
  "name": "Robert Lowell MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. HASTINGS, Employer, and Great American Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moody v. Hastings",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7192",
  "first_page": "132",
  "last_page": "133",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.M. 132"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "381 P.2d 207"
    }
  ],
  "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": "58 N.M. 824",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1587569
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/58/0824-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N.M. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2787868
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/69/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.M. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1590417
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/60/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N.M. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582007
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/54/0210-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 2658,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.692,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6954300404085818e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6999342432705536
    },
    "sha256": "d54e2764fbcc90d42e52e7f536e2852d11d628176a68c02ef89f1675ec630dba",
    "simhash": "1:812dec48b9ccab8c",
    "word_count": 430
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:49.886466+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "COMPTON, C. J., and MOISE, J\u201e concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Lowell MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. HASTINGS, Employer, and Great American Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "NOBLE, Justice.\nThis appeal is concerned with whether a claim for workmen\u2019s compensation installment payments, filed less than 31 days after the injury,- is premature and requires dismissal.\nClaimant sustained an injury on May 6, 1959, and filed his claim for compensation benefits May 22, 1959. A motion urging lack of jurisdiction because of the premature filing of the claim was denied and a jury empanelled to try the cause. After presentation of claimant\u2019s evidence, except for the testimony of his medical expert, the motion was renewed and sustained by the court. This appeal is from the order dismissing the claim with prejudice.\nIt is settled in New Mexico that jurisdiction is conferred on the court to award installment compensation payments only when the employer has failed or refused to make such installment payments as provided in the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. George v. Miller & Smith, Inc., 54 N.M. 210, 219 P.2d 285; Fresquez v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., 60 N.M. 384, 291 P. 2d 1102; and, a claim filed less than 31 days after the injury is prematurely filed as ,to installment compensation benefits and must be dismissed. Martinez v. Wester Brothers Wholesale Produce Co., 69 N.M. 375, 367 P.2d 545. Payment of compensation installments after the filing of a premature claim does not waive such premature filing nor confer jurisdiction upon the court.\nFor the first time, on appeal, claimant asserts that dismissal of the claim before close of claimant\u2019s case precluded him from proving medical expense to which he is entitled. While it is true that a motion to dismiss prior to the close of plaintiff\u2019s case should ordinarily not be entertained, Hatch v. Strebeck, 58 N.M. 824, 277 P.2d 317, in this case the court was advised by claimant\u2019s counsel that the only remaining testimony was that of a medical expert as to the extent of claimant\u2019s injury and disability. Furthermore, claimant had testified that the insurance carrier had not refused medical or surgical treatment. No proof was made or tendered of unpaid medical bills, nor was any objection made to dismissal of the claim on that ground. We hold claimant\u2019s position to be without merit.\nFinding no error, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, C. J., and MOISE, J\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "NOBLE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "I-Iarry E. Stowers, Jr., Thomas E. Jones, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "Keleher & McLeod, Russell Moore and Michael L. Keleher, Albuquerque, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "381 P.2d 207\nRobert Lowell MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. HASTINGS, Employer, and Great American Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 7192.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nApril 29, 1963.\nI-Iarry E. Stowers, Jr., Thomas E. Jones, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nKeleher & McLeod, Russell Moore and Michael L. Keleher, Albuquerque, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0132-01",
  "first_page_order": 164,
  "last_page_order": 165
}