{ "id": 1573064, "name": "Carmen PEDRAZZA, mother and next friend of Susanna Pedrazza, Lourdes Pedrazza, Salvador Pedrazza, Maria Pedrazza, Maria del Carmen Pedrazza and Margarita Pedrazza, children of Salvador F. Ontiveros, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SID FLEMING CONTRACTOR, INC. and Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Pedrazza v. Sid Fleming Contractor, Inc.", "decision_date": "1980-02-25", "docket_number": "No. 12389", "first_page": "59", "last_page": "63", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 N.M. 59" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "607 P.2d 597" } ], "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": "77 R.I. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "R.I.", "case_ids": [ 5308346 ], "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ri/77/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 A. 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Conn. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 394866 ], "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/97/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 F. 634", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6741799 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/244/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 U.S. 181", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3528436 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1888, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/125/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 L.Ed. 1255", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 U.S. 763", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 362721 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "771" }, { "page": "940" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/339/0763-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 S.Ct. 1064", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 3519528, 3519298 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/118/0355-01", "/us/118/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 U.S. 356", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3519298 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/118/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 F.Supp. 593", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3868090 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/412/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 U.S. 564", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782964 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" }, { "page": "2709" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.W.2d 782", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Minn. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 182528 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/232/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Hawaii 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Haw.", "case_ids": [ 1466417 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/haw/39/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.M. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5321793 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/73/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 155", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12042604 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 F.Supp. 234", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1554494 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/252/0234-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 573, "char_count": 8579, "ocr_confidence": 0.81, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.38584393087688e-07, "percentile": 0.8766505305907796 }, "sha256": "e875b717346d8392738c774277dca539d8e0767748c1cc36580c654e4d168e9e", "simhash": "1:50b842c7be536248", "word_count": 1352 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:16.712923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "EASLEY and FELTER, JJ., concur.", "SOSA, C. J., not participating.", "FEDERICI, J., dissenting." ], "parties": [ "Carmen PEDRAZZA, mother and next friend of Susanna Pedrazza, Lourdes Pedrazza, Salvador Pedrazza, Maria Pedrazza, Maria del Carmen Pedrazza and Margarita Pedrazza, children of Salvador F. Ontiveros, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SID FLEMING CONTRACTOR, INC. and Fireman\u2019s Fund Insurance Companies, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPAYNE, Justice.\nSalvador Ontiveros was killed in an accident while employed by Sid Fleming Contractor, Inc. The natural mother of the decedent\u2019s children, Carmen Pedrazza, filed a complaint for benefits under the New Mexico Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act on behalf of decedent\u2019s children.\nThe plaintiff children have at all times been residents of the Republic of Mexico. Defendant moved for dismissal based upon the pleadings, claiming that plaintiffs are precluded from recovery by Section 52-1-52, N.M.S.A.1978. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We affirm the trial court.\nPlaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of that portion of Section 52-1-52 which states:\n[N]o claim or judgment for compensation, under this act (citation omitted), shall accrue to or be recovered by relatives or dependents not residents of the United States at the time of the injury of such workman.\nSpecifically they allege that this section violates the \u201cdue process\u201d and \u201cequal protection\u201d clauses of the New Mexico and United States Constitutions.\nIt is important to note the exclusive nature and operation of workmen\u2019s compensation. If an employer and employee are covered by the Act, all their rights and remedies are defined exclusively by the Act. \u00a7 52-1-9, N.M.S.A.1978. As between the employer and the employee, all other common law and statutory actions are barred by the Act. This bar also applies to the employee\u2019s dependents to the extent that they are covered by the Act.\nI.\nIn considering the due process and equal protection principles in this case, the federal and state clauses are treated alike.\nPlaintiffs argue that Section 52-1-52 deprives them of due process of law. A state violates the due process clause when it interferes with a fundamental right or a vested property interest. United States v. State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234 (D.C.1966), aff\u2019d, 384 U.S. 155, 86 S.Ct. 1383, 16 L.Ed.2d 434 (1966). No law has been cited, nor can we find any, stating that workmen\u2019s compensation is or ought to be ranked as a fundamental right within the framework of the Constitution.\nNext we consider whether a worker\u2019s right to compensation under the Act is a vested property interest. Plaintiffs liken workmen\u2019s compensation to insurance, the premiums being paid in labor, not dollars, and the benefits vesting upon payment, not death. Plaintiffs\u2019 comparison with insurance, however, clouds a proper understanding of the operation of workmen\u2019s compensation. While there are surface similarities between the two, there are also critical differences.\nThe worker\u2019s and the dependent\u2019s right to compensation benefits arise and may be received only as specified by statute. New Mexico\u2019s Act provides that the right to enforce dependency death benefits attaches at that point when the worker dies, not at the inception of or during his work relationship. \u00a7 52-1-17, N.M.S.A. 1978; Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Jarde, 73 N.M. 371, 388 P.2d 382 (1963). See also Gambalan v. Kekaha Sugar Co., Ltd., 39 Hawaii 258 (1952). The worker\u2019s dependents have only an inchoate right to benefits prior to the worker\u2019s death, and after his death their right vests as property, if at all, according to the terms of the Act. Todeva v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 232 Minn. 422, 45 N.W.2d 782 (1951).\nIt is apparent that the New Mexico Legislature, through the terms of Section 52-1-52, intended that a property right in workmen\u2019s compensation claims never vest in non-resident, alien dependents. This Court will not invade the province of the Legislature and say that the plaintiffs have a due process property right which the Legislature has not seen fit to confer, unless the Legislature\u2019s denial is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.\nFederal courts have stated the due process problem confronting us thusly:\nTo have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.\nBoard of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).\nFor plaintiffs to acquire the right contended for, so that it is a protected \u201cproperty\u201d interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, it must appear that the state intended to confer that right. Once conferred its deprivation requires compliance with procedural due process.\nChild v. Beame, 412 F.Supp. 593, 605 (D.C.N.Y.1976).\nThe Legislature conferred no due process property right upon the plaintiffs which the district court could have violated by dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 suit.\nII.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 second constitutional argument is that Section 52-1-52 is void on equal protection grounds. They assert that the Act discriminates on the basis of alien-age with no rational relation to a legitimate state interest. Plaintiffs maintain that New Mexico has created a suspect classification and urge us to apply strict scrutiny in our equal protection analysis. The plaintiffs\u2019 non-resident alien status, however, prevents us from being able to apply an equal protection test.\nPlaintiffs are beyond the reach of the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause extends \u201cto any person within [the state\u2019s] jurisdiction.\u201d As residents of the Republic of Mexico, plaintiffs cannot satisfy this qualification. The United States Supreme Court has counseled against exporting constitutional guarantees, saying:\n[I]n extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien\u2019s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. In the pioneer case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins [118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220], the Court said of the Fourteenth Amendment, \u201cThese provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality . . .\u201d\nJohnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 771, 70 S.Ct. 936, 940, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950).\nThe purpose of the equal protection clause is to protect persons and groups within United States jurisdiction from being singled out and subjected to hostile legislation. Pembina Consolidated Silver Min. & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 8 S.Ct. 737, 31 L.Ed. 650 (1888). Clearly, the plaintiffs are being subjected to hostile legislation, but as non-resident aliens they are beyond the protective reach of the equal protection clause and outside of our ability to help their cause on constitutional grounds.\nHad the workmen\u2019s compensation law provided that the rights of the worker and the rights of his dependents are the same, plaintiffs could have claimed a denial of equal protection through their deceased father, a resident worker. The rights and remedies of the worker, however, are separate and distinct from those of his dependents. A dependent\u2019s claim is not derivative of the worker, but is given him by statute independent of the worker. See generally A. Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation, \u00a7 64.10 (1978). The status of the dependent, and his relationship to the Act, determines whether he recovers. See Bjolstad v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co., 244 F. 634 (N.D.Cal.1917); Frasca v. City Coal Co., 97 Conn. 212, 116 A. 189 (1922); Erba v. Erba Bros., Inc., 77 R.I. 161 (1949). Plaintiffs\u2019 non-resident alien status prevents them from recovering death benefits under the New Mexico Act.\nThis opinion does not deny plaintiffs other avenues of recovery. The worker and his dependents are independent of and take separately from one another under the Act. Therefore, the bar against using other legal remedies to recover for the injury or death of a worker cannot be raised against those dependents not covered by the Act.\nWe affirm.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nEASLEY and FELTER, JJ., concur.\nSOSA, C. J., not participating.\nFEDERICI, J., dissenting.", "type": "majority", "author": "PAYNE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Glenn B. Neumeyer, Las Cruces, for plaintiff-appellant.", "J. R. Crouch, Las Cruces, for defendantsappellees.", "Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, James A. Parker, Sheehan & Sheehan, William H. Carpenter, Albuquerque, for amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "607 P.2d 597\nCarmen PEDRAZZA, mother and next friend of Susanna Pedrazza, Lourdes Pedrazza, Salvador Pedrazza, Maria Pedrazza, Maria del Carmen Pedrazza and Margarita Pedrazza, children of Salvador F. Ontiveros, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SID FLEMING CONTRACTOR, INC. and Fireman\u2019s Fund Insurance Companies, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 12389.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nFeb. 25, 1980.\nGlenn B. Neumeyer, Las Cruces, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJ. R. Crouch, Las Cruces, for defendantsappellees.\nModrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, James A. Parker, Sheehan & Sheehan, William H. Carpenter, Albuquerque, for amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0059-01", "first_page_order": 95, "last_page_order": 99 }