{
  "id": 2735597,
  "name": "Earl V. SHANNON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDIA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shannon v. Sandia Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1968-11-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 8550",
  "first_page": "634",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.M. 634"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "447 P.2d 514"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N.M. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2801790
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N.M. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2856368
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/72/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2806383
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N.M. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2791841
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/69/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 P. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "74"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.M. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8843209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/27/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N.M. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1562286
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/47/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.M. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5317443
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/61/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2801790
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N.M. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2856368
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/72/0447-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 3922,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.683,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.284461673525515e-08,
      "percentile": 0.387222961647571
    },
    "sha256": "b498c5fc175121d63c82454fc1df06105ab4eb13d63f418d9d5012a4e0b0e14c",
    "simhash": "1:46459db075d521f0",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:21:18.946358+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CHAVEZ, C. J., and MOISE and COMPTON, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Earl V. SHANNON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDIA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCARMODY, Justice.\nBy its appeal, the employer seeks to have us reverse a Workmen\u2019s Compensation award and declare that claimant\u2019s injury was autogenous and as a matter of law did not \u201carise out of\u201d his employmeht.\nIt is clear from the medical testimony that the claimant was susceptible to \u25a0an intervertebral disc problem, and there is no doubt but that it was because of this pre-existing condition that the injury occurred. However, this does not disqualify him from disability benefits, if, under the facts, it is determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Reynolds v. Ruidoso Racing Association, Inc., 69 N.M. 248, 365 P.2d 671 (1961); see, also, Ortega v. New Mexico State Highway Department, 77 N.M. 185, 420 P.2d 771 (1966).\nEmployer relies upon only two cases, Luvaul v. A. Ray Barker Motor Co., 72 N.M. 447, 384 P.2d 885 (1963), and, more particularly, upon Berry v. J. C. Penney Co., 74 N.M. 484, 394 P.2d 996 (1964), it being urged that our holding in Berry requires a reversal of this case because, it is contended, there is no reasonable factual \u2022distinction between the two cases. We are not so impressed. In Berry, as in Luvaul, we affirmed a refusal of compensation on the basis that the findings of the trial court were supported by substantial evidence. In both of the above cases, there was a failure of medical proof that the injury was related to the employment. In the instant case, to the contrary, the trial court found, based upon substantial medical testimony, that the activity engaged in by claimant as a part of his employment caused the injury. It must be admitted, as argued by the employer, that the injury might have occurred while the claimant was performing some other activity, such as putting on his trousers, or playing golf, or the like; but, nevertheless, the fact remains that the medical testimony is that the employee\u2019s disc herniated while engaged in activities required of his employment and the court so found.\nIt requires the citation of no authority that we will not disturb the findings of the trial court which are supported by substantial evidence. Here, the findings are so supported, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nAttorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $1,000.00 are allowed for claimant\u2019s attorneys in connection with this appeal.\nIt is so ordered.\nCHAVEZ, C. J., and MOISE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CARMODY, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "NOBLE, Justice,\n(dissenting).\nI am convinced that the majority have today completely eliminated the requirement of our workmen\u2019s compensation statute that to be compensable an injury must arise \u201cout of\u201d the employment, that is, that the accident must result from a risk incident to the work itself. The effect of the majority holding is to make all the injuries occurring \u201cwhile at work\u201d compensable.\nIn Berry v. J. C. Penney Co., 74 N.M. 484, 394 P.2d 996, we interpreted the language \u201carising out of employment\u201d to require proof that the injury was caused by \u201ca peculiar or increased risk to which claimant, as distinguished from the general public, was subjected by his employment.\u201d See also Luvaul v. A. Ray Barker Motor Co., 72 N.M. 447, 384 P.2d 885; Martinez v. Fidel, 61 N.M. 6, 293 P.2d 654; Barton v. Skelly Oil Co., 47 N.M. 127, 138 P.2d 263; Merrill v. Penasco Lumber Co., 27 N.M. 632, 204 P. 72, 74.\nIt is quite clear that under the facts of this case the claimant\u2019s injury, just as in Berry, arose out of risks or a condition personal to the claimant and not out of a risk peculiar to the employment. In my view, Berry is controlling and requires a reversal of the judgment appealed from. I, therefore, dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "NOBLE, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Joseph J. Mullins, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "Domcnici & Bonham, Matteucci & Matteucci, Albuquerque, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "447 P.2d 514\nEarl V. SHANNON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDIA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 8550.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 25, 1968.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Joseph J. Mullins, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nDomcnici & Bonham, Matteucci & Matteucci, Albuquerque, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0634-01",
  "first_page_order": 666,
  "last_page_order": 667
}