{ "id": 2869856, "name": "David MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRIVER MECHENBIER, INC., and Sentry Insurance Company, its insuror, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Martinez v. Driver Mechenbier, Inc.", "decision_date": "1977-03-22", "docket_number": "No. 2742", "first_page": "282", "last_page": "283", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "90 N.M. 282" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "562 P.2d 843" } ], "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": "215 A.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 8097063 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/215/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Del. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Del.", "case_ids": [ 458122 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/del/59/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Storey 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Storey", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 So.2d 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9742704 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/285/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.C. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 2147918 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/260/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 S.W.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10124433 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/493/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5378016 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2832417 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0161-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 252, "char_count": 3243, "ocr_confidence": 0.803, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.649492536228262e-07, "percentile": 0.8239229391366061 }, "sha256": "384ecad2df6d0e0f374108c6e2e58f7f64aae6c45843a7ce1699b287f5733e72", "simhash": "1:91b53d8f35cf2606", "word_count": 496 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "David MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRIVER MECHENBIER, INC., and Sentry Insurance Company, its insuror, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nA hearing was held to determine whether plaintiff was entitled to workmen\u2019s compensation benefits arising out of defendants\u2019 claim that plaintiff falsified his employment application.\nThe trial court found that plaintiff knowingly and willfully made false representations as to his physical condition; that the employer relied upon the false representations, a substantial factor in hiring plaintiff; that a causal connection existed between the false representations and the injury claimed.\nThe trial court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to workmen\u2019s compensation benefits and entered judgment that plaintiff\u2019s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. We affirm.\nThe findings were supported by substantial evidence.\nThis appeal is not meritorious because plaintiff did not comply with Rule 9(d), Rules of Appellate Procedure [\u00a7 21-12-9(d), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1975 Supp.)]. In pertinent part, it reads:\nThe brief must set forth an attack on any finding in accordance with these rules or such finding shall be conclusive.\nPlaintiff failed to attack any findings in his brief which were challenged. This is insufficient to raise an issue on appeal. Perez v. Gallegos, 87 N.M. 161, 530 P.2d 1155 (1974). However, denial of recovery of workmen\u2019s compensation benefits arising out of a falsified employment application is a matter of first impression. We must determine the factors essential to bar recovery in order to decide whether the trial court\u2019s findings meet the test.\nThe only case in New Mexico that approaches the problem is Gray v. J. P. (Bum) Gibbins, Inc., 75 N.M. 584, 408 P.2d 506 (1965). Here, defendants contend that plaintiff\u2019s employment was fraudulently procured. The trial court found that (1) plaintiff did not knowingly or willfully make a false representation as to his physical condition, and (2) the employer did not rely upon the questionnaire as a condition of plaintiff\u2019s employment. Upon these findings, workmen\u2019s compensation benefits were awarded. The case was affirmed on appeal.\nTo bar recovery, three essential factors must be present: \u201c(1) The employee must have knowingly and willfully made a false representation as to his physical condition. (2) The employer must have relied upon the false representation and this reliance must have been a substantial factor in the hiring. (3) There must have been a causal connection between the false representation and the injury.\u201d 1A Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 47.53 (1973); Federal Copper & Aluminum Company v. Dickey, 493 S.W.2d 463 (Tenn.1973); Cooper v. McDevitt & Street Company, 260 S.C. 463, 196 S.E.2d 833 (1973); City of Homestead, Dade County v. Watkins, 285 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973); Air Mod Corporation v. Newton, 9 Storey 148, 59 Del. 148, 215 A.2d 434 (1965).\nThe trial court found each of these factors present.\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas E. Jones, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "John A. Klecan, Klecan & Roach, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "562 P.2d 843\nDavid MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRIVER MECHENBIER, INC., and Sentry Insurance Company, its insuror, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 2742.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 22, 1977.\nThomas E. Jones, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJohn A. Klecan, Klecan & Roach, P.A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0282-01", "first_page_order": 318, "last_page_order": 319 }