{ "id": 1557103, "name": "NEW MEXICO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "New Mexico Hospital Ass'n v. Employment Security Commission", "decision_date": "1979-05-18", "docket_number": "No. 11753", "first_page": "725", "last_page": "730", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "92 N.M. 725" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "594 P.2d 1181" } ], "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": "62 N.M. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2712993 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" }, { "page": "202" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/62/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 F.Supp. 684", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1491929 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/230/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 L.Ed. 645", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 U.S. 593", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6931994 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/340/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3306", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)(8)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3309", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N.M. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1556024 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/34/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.M. 756", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2865786 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/89/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3304", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 521, "char_count": 13012, "ocr_confidence": 0.797, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.058199339034824035 }, "sha256": "628e72702ba23059f537b7eb3fc0286526168a65c994ff6bea7dfc2a59ed16fe", "simhash": "1:953704205af6f4ff", "word_count": 2039 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:13.817562+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "McMANUS, Senior Justice and FEDERI-CI, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "NEW MEXICO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nEASLEY, Justice.\nThe Employment Security Commission (ESC) issued a decision requiring members of the New Mexico Hospital Association (the Hospitals) to reimburse the New Mexico Unemployment Compensation Fund (the State Fund) for 100% of unemployment compensation paid to claimants for certain weeks during which the State Fund also received a 50% contribution from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund (the Federal Fund). The District Court in Bernalillo County affirmed the ESC decision, and the Hospitals appeal. We affirm.\nThe issues raised are (1) whether the New Mexico Unemployment Compensation Act, \u00a7\u00a7 51-1-1, et seq., N.M.S.A.1978 (the State Act) is ambiguous and may be construed to require the Hospitals to reimburse the State Fund for only 50% of benefit costs during those periods when the Federal Fund contributes 50%; and (2) if the State Act cannot be so construed, whether the State Act conflicts with federal unemployment laws and regulations.\nUnder the State Act there are \u201ccontributing employers\u201d and \u201creimbursing employers\u201d. Contributing employers are taxed to the State Fund according to the schedules set forth in \u00a7 51-1-11. Reimbursing employers (non-profit organizations) are allowed the option of paying, on a reimbursement basis, the amount of benefits actually paid to claimants. \u00a7 51-1-13. The Hospitals are reimbursing employers.\nThe Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (the Federal Extended Compensation Act) (compiled as \u00a7\u00a7 201-207 following 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3304, Vol. 7 U.S.C. 1976 ed. at 897-99), encourages participating states to provide extended benefits, up to 39 weeks, during certain defined periods of high unemployment (extended benefit periods). This is accomplished by contributions to the various state funds from the Federal Fund of 50% of the last 13 weeks of benefit costs during an extended benefit period, from week 27 through week 39.\nAt the time the Federal Extended Compensation Act was passed, the New Mexico Act provided for 30 weeks of regular unemployment compensation to claimants as compared with 26 weeks in most states. Under the ESC decision, the Hospitals were required to reimburse the State Fund for 100% of regular benefit costs (the first 30 weeks) and for 50% of extended benefit costs (weeks 31 through 39). Since the Federal contribution during an extended benefit period applies from weeks 27 through 39, the result of the ESC decision was that for weeks 27 through 30 the State Fund received 150% of benefit costs attributable to the Hospitals; 100% reimbursed by the Hospitals and 50% from the Federal Fund.\nThe Hospitals contend that the ESC ruling is inconsistent with the reimbursement concept. They urge us to construe the State Act to require reimbursing employers to pay to the State Fund only half the amount of any sharable compensation. This question is the first impression in the United States.\nConstruction of the State Act\nRegular benefits are those benefits provided under \u00a7 51-1-4 for 30 weeks, and extended benefits are those benefits payable under \u00a7 51-1-48 during an extended benefit period to those claimants who have exhausted all their rights to regular benefits. Unless there is ambiguity in a statute, construction is uncalled for. State v. Elliot, 89 N.M. 756, 557 P.2d 1105 (1977); Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. Crile, 34 N.M. 650, 287 P. 696 (1930). The State Act requires reimbursing employers to make payments in lieu of contributions in amounts equal to the full amount of regular benefits actually paid plus one-half of the amount of extended benefits. \u00a7 51-1-13. The alleged ambiguity is in the definition of what are \u201cregular benefits\u201d and \u201cextended benefits\u201d. Are the amounts paid for weeks 27 through 30 regular or extended benefits? Particular attention must be paid to the emphasized portions of the following statutes.\nSection 51-1-42, N.M.S.A.1978, provides:\nAs used in the Unemployment Compensation Law: (Emphasis added.)\nB. \u201cbenefits\u201d means the cash unemployment compensation payments payable to an eligible individual pursuant to Section 51-1-4, N.M.S.A.1978 ....\nSection 51-1-4(C), N.M.S.A.1978 provides for unemployment benefits to be paid to individuals for 30 weeks.\nSection 51-1-48, which was enacted as an amendment to the New Mexico Unemployment Compensation Law to implement the federal program of extended benefits, provides:\nDefinitions; extended benefits.\nA. As used in this section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (Emphasis added.)\n(7) \u201cregular benefits\u201d means benefits payable to an individual under the Unemployment Compensation Law . other than extended benefits ;\n(8) \u201cextended benefits\u201d means benefits . payable to an individual under the provisions of this section for weeks of unemployment in his eligibility period. (Emphasis added.)\nWe find no ambiguity in the State Act regarding these definitions. It is clear that \u201cextended benefits\u201d are benefits payable \u201cunder the provisions of this section\u201d, \u00a7 51-1-48, and benefits payable under other sections of the Unemployment Compensation Law are \u201cregular benefits\u201d. A claimant is eligible for \u201cextended benefits\u201d only after he has exhausted all his rights to \u201cregular benefits that were available to him under the Unemployment Compensation Law\u201d. \u00a7 51-1-48(C).\nConstitutionality of the State Act\nThe Hospitals contend that, as interpreted by the ESC, the State Act conflicts with Federal Statutes and regulations.\na. Federal Regulations\nThe relevant Federal Regulation is 20 C.F.R. 615.12, which provides:\nThe State law shall require an employer to reimburse the State Fund for 50 per cent of any sharable compensation paid to an individual that is attributable under the State law to service with such employer if the employer ... is reimbursing the State fund with respect to such service.\nThe Hospitals argue that this regulation means that the State shall require a reimbursing employer to reimburse no more than 50% of any sharable compensation. The language of the regulation, however, admits of no such requirement.\nb. The Federal Act\nThe relevant Federal statutes were enacted by Titles I and II of Pub.L.No. 91-373 (1970). Title I (codified in scattered sections of 5, 15, 26 and 42 U.S.C.) amended certain sections of the existing Federal Act, and enacted a new section, 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3309. Title II was the Federal Extended Compensation Act.\nAs originally enacted, the Federal Act did not provide unemployment compensation for employees of non-profit hospitals. Section 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3306(c)(8) excludes from the definition of \u201cemployment\u201d, service for non-profit organizations such as the Hospitals. Title I of the 1970 amendments brought those employees under the purview of the Act. 26 U.S.C \u00a7 3304(a)(6)(A) now requires states to provide compensation to claimants formerly employed in hospitals. Section 3304(a)(6)(B) now provides that these institutions be allowed to make reimbursing payments in lieu of contributions as provided in \u00a7 3309.\nIt is provided in the Federal Extended Compensation Act that:\nState law shall provide that payment of extended compensation shall be made to individuals who have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law (Emphasis added.)\n\u00a7 202.\nThere shall be paid to each State an amount equal to one-half of the sum of\u2014\n(A) the sharable extended compensation, and\n(B) the sharable regular compensation,\npaid to individuals under the State law.\nextended compensation paid ... is sharable extended compensation to the extent that the aggregate extended compensation paid does not exceed the smallest of .\n[(A) 50 per centum of the total amount of regular compensation . payable to him . . . ,\n(B) thirteen times his average weekly benefit amount, or\n(C) thirty-nine times his average weekly benefit amount, reduced by the regular compensation paid (Emphasis added.)]\n(c) [Sharable regular compensation] For purposes of subsection (a)(1)(B), regular compensation paid ... is sh arable regular compensation \u2014\n(1) if such week is in such individual\u2019s eligibility period . . . and\n(2) to the extent that the sum of such compensation, plus the regular compensation paid . . . exceeds twenty-six times (and does not exceed thirty-nine times) the average weekly benefit amount . . for weeks of total unemployment payable to such individual under the State law . (Emphasis added.)\n\u00a7 204.\nFrom the above sections it appears that the Congress contemplated that the Federal Fund would share 50% of the costs of the last 13 weeks of benefits in an extended benefit period, regardless of whether those were termed \u201cextended\u201d or \u201cregular\u201d compensation under state law. The legislative history reflects this intention.\nThe Federal Government would pay one-half the cost of the extended unemployment compensation required under this title. Not to discourage States from providing regular compensation for longer than 26 weeks, the Federal Government would also pay one-half of regular compensation in excess of 26 weeks in a benefit year to the extent such regular compensation is paid during an extended benefit period.\nH.R.Rep.No. 612, p. 30, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969); See S.R.Rep.No. 752, p. 35, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess. (1970).\nFrom the above sections, and the legislative history of those sections, it is clear that the Congressional intent was to allow the Federal Fund to share with the State Fund 50% of compensation paid from weeks 27 through 39 in an extended benefit period, whether those benefits were all \u201cextended\u201d, or were part \u201cregular\u201d and part \u201cextended\u201d under the particular state law.\nThe Hospitals cite Congressional legislative history which indicates that, by providing the reimbursement plan for nonprofit organizations and placing the costs of administering the program on contributing employers, it was the intention of Congress to allow these organizations to take part in the system at a minimum cost. The Hospitals argue that they should not now be required to make payments which act as a general subsidy to the system. This legislative history does not relate to the Federal Extended Compensation Act. That Act does not prohibit the states from requiring reimbursement by non-profit organizations of the full amount of \u201cregular benefits\u201d under State law. Indeed, Title I of Pub. L.No. 91-373, by enacting the new \u00a7 3309, appears to require the opposite.\nOur review of the committee reports and of discussions on the floor of both houses indicates that, apparently, the Congress did not perceive this interaction between Titles I and II of Pub.L.No. 91-373.\nHad the Congress considered the issue, they might have provided that non-profit organizations reimburse the various state funds for no more than 50% of any sharable compensation. However, reimbursing employers already benefit in that they do not share in the administrative costs of providing regular compensation to claimants, and, under the State Act, they receive the benefit of 50% of the cost of extended compensation for the last nine weeks. Both of these benefits are at the expense of contributing employers because the administration costs of the unemployment system and the Federal contributions during extended benefit periods find their source in the taxes imposed on contributing employers. 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 3301; 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1101 to 1105. The Congress might well have intended not to extend any further benefits to reimbursing employers at the expense of contributing employers.\nIn construing a Federal Act to effectuate the Congressional purpose, courts must take care not to extend the scope, nor distort the ordinary meaning of the Statutes. 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593, 71 S.Ct. 515, 95 L.Ed. 645 (1951); Hoffman v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38, 230 F.Supp. 684 (N.D.Cal.1962). In construing State Statutes, this Court has held:\nA statute must be read and given effect as it is written by the Legislature, not as the court may think it should be or would have been written if the Legislature had envisaged all the problems and complications which might arise in the course of its administration.\nBurch v. Foy, 62 N.M. 219, 223, 308 P.2d 199, 202 (1957). We have found no Federal cases construing Federal Statutes which provide a contrary rule where, as here, Congress apparently did not consider a possible effect which resulted from the Federal Statute.\nWe have found that the State Act is not ambiguous with regard to the definition of \u201cregular\u201d and \u201cextended\u201d benefits, and that the State Act is not in conflict with Federal statutes and regulations. The decision of the district court is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMcMANUS, Senior Justice and FEDERI-CI, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EASLEY, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sutin, Thayer & Browne, LaFel E. Oman, Marianne Woodard, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.", "J. R. Baumgartner, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "594 P.2d 1181\nNEW MEXICO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 11753.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 18, 1979.\nSutin, Thayer & Browne, LaFel E. Oman, Marianne Woodard, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.\nJ. R. Baumgartner, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee." }, "file_name": "0725-01", "first_page_order": 761, "last_page_order": 766 }