{
  "id": 2802665,
  "name": "Boleslo P. PEREA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TORRANCE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Employer, and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appeilees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Perea v. Board of Torrance County Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1967-03-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 8123",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "546",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.M. 543"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "425 P.2d 308"
    }
  ],
  "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": "269 N.Y.S.2d 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 A.D.2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3172871
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad2d/25/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.Y.S.2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Misc.2d 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Misc. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1151255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/misc2d/45/0733-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.E.2d 415",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.Y.S.2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.Y.2d 1071",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2256529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny-2d/8/1071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.Y.S.2d 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 A.D.2d 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3085089
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad2d/10/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 Kan. 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873935
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/152/0749-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 P.2d 905",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Cal.2d 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2188260
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-2d/22/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 P. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.M. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        208825
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/17/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.M. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571474
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/41/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.M. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5345556
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/64/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.M. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2714460
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/62/0061-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 428,
    "char_count": 6648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.666,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.756858701522825e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7093286133670341
    },
    "sha256": "0e040842179ee49dfe37cb0d5497bdffa3b4c757ee45b257dcd880cd9dfcfc81",
    "simhash": "1:1335ddc292a70eef",
    "word_count": 1073
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CARMODY, J., and OMAN, J., Ct.App., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Boleslo P. PEREA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TORRANCE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Employer, and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appeilees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCHAVEZ, Chief Justice.\nIn a suit brought by plaintiff-appellant Boleslo P. Perea to recover workmen\u2019s compensation, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees. From the order and judgment, appellant brings this appeal.\nAppellant Boleslo P. Perea was injured while employed as a deputy district court clerk and as county juvenile probation officer in Torrance County. Appellant filed a claim for workmen\u2019s compensation against appellees, the Board of County Commissioners of Torrance County, employer, and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, insurer.\nThe question presented is whether appellant, at the time of injury, was an employee of the county. Appellant contends that in either, or both, of his positions as deputy district court clerk and juvenile probation officer of Torrance County he was an employee of the county.\nIn support of his contention, appellant cites 6291 Ops.Att\u2019y Gen. 246 (1955) and 6299 Ops.Att\u2019y Gen. 255 (1955). This court is not bound by opinions of the Attorney General. We need give them only such weight as we deem they merit. If we think they are right we follow and approve, and if we are convinced they are wrong we will reject them. First Thrift and Loan Association v. State, ex rel. Robinson, 62 N.M. 61, 304 P.2d 582; Hanagan v. Board of County Commissioners, 64 N.M. 103, 325 P.2d 282. Neither of the two opinions cited by appellant is concerned with the question of whether a deputy court clerk or a juvenile probation officer is an employee of the county with respect to coverage by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. Opinion No. 6291 concluded that a probation officer, even though under the control of the district judge, could be included under the Retirement Act. Opinion No. 6299 held that probation officers and district court clerks could be included in a county coverage group under the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance System. Although reasoning may be found in both opinions \u25a0implying that district court clerks and probation officers are county employees, such .reasoning is not persuasive in the field of workmen\u2019s compensation, because it ignores the primary test used in determining employment status.\nThe primary 'test to determine employment status is the right to control the details of the work. 1A Larson s Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 43.30, p. 627. Our Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is based upon an employer-employee relationship. Section 59-10-12(h), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., defines the word \u201cemployer\u201d as including the state and each county, and \u00a7 59-10-12 (i), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., provides:\n\u201c \u2018Workman\u2019 means any person who has entered into the employment of or works under contract of service or apprenticeship, with an employer, * *\nIn Mendoza v. Gallup Southwestern Coal Co., 41 N.M. 161, 66 P.2d 426, we stated:\n\u201cThe words \u2018employer and employee\u2019 as used in the New Mexico Workman\u2019s Compensation Act are used in their natural sense and intended to describe the conventional relation between the employer who pays wages to an employee for his labor. * * *\n\u201cOne of the tests of the relation of employer and employee is that the employer retains the right to direct the manner in which his business shall be done and the result to be accomplished. * * *\u201d\n\u25a0 -The record reveals that appellant was appointed deputy district court clerk and juvenile probation officer by the district judge of the Seventh Judicial District. Ap-pellant\u2019s instructions and duties were prescribed .by, and he performed his duties .under the direction, supervision and control of, the district judge and district court clerk. Appellant was paid by warrants issued by the district court clerk. Further, the right to control and direct the details o.f the duties of probation officers and district court clerks is given to the district judge by \u00a7\u00a7 13-8-12 and 16-3-34, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.\nThe facts show that appellant served under the direction and control of the district judge, who is a state officer for the same reason that district attorneys are state officers. See, Ward v. Romero, 17 N.M. 88, 125 P. 617. Under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, appellant must be- employed by the county in order to sue the county. The County Commissioners of Torrance County did not appoint appellant, prescribe his duties, give him any orders or directions, exercise any supervision or control over him, or include his salary in their budget. Because of these factors, appellant did not enter \u201cinto the employment of\u201d \u25a0the county or work \u201cunder contract of service or apprenticeship\u201d with the county. .Appellant- cannot, therefore, be considered .a county employee within the meaning- of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nAppellant argues that the district court fund is a county fund and, because appellant\u2019s salary is derived from that fund, that he is a county employee. This argument is without merit. First, the method of payment is merely one of the subordinate factors considered in the right to control test. 1A Larson\u2019s Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 43.53, p. 634. In the instant case, this factor is outweighed by other factors developed by the record showing the district judge\u2019s right to control and the exercise of that control. Second, the mere payment of wages is not sufficient to establish the employer and employee relationship, Guarantee Ins. Co. Limited Mutual v. Industrial Accident Commission, 22 Cal.2d 516, 139 P.2d 905, but only tends to establish the relationship of employer and employee, Davis v. Julian, 152 Kan. 749, 107 P.2d 745. Finally, it has been held that when performing duties for a state court the principal factors, in determining the status of an employee, are the power of appointment and removal and the fixing of salaries, not the fact that the employee may be paid from the fund of a lesser political entity. Shea v. Falk, 10 A.D.2d 142, 197 N.Y.S.2d 768, aff\u2019d 8 N.Y.2d 1071, 207 N.Y.S.2d 285, 170 N.E.2d 415; accord, Rein v. Wagner, 45 Misc.2d 733, 257 N.Y.S.2d 385, mod\u2019f 25 A.D.2d 356, 269 N.Y.S.2d 578.\nAppellant\u2019s second point appears to he based upon this court\u2019s concluding that appellant was a county employee. Since we hold that appellant was not a county employee, this point need not be considered.\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nCARMODY, J., and OMAN, J., Ct.App., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CHAVEZ, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "N. Tito Quintana, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "Sutin & Jones, Albuquerque, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "425 P.2d 308\nBoleslo P. PEREA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TORRANCE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Employer, and Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appeilees.\nNo. 8123.\nSupremo Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 20, 1967.\nN. Tito Quintana, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nSutin & Jones, Albuquerque, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 575,
  "last_page_order": 578
}