{ "id": 1555171, "name": "Robert BRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Britz v. Joy Manufacturing Co.", "decision_date": "1982-02-02", "docket_number": "No. 5180", "first_page": "595", "last_page": "598", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "97 N.M. 595" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "642 P.2d 198" } ], "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": "85 N.M. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2773182 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2772750 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0006-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 Minn. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 8888319 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/250/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N.M. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1575605 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/95/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2805038 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 720", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2798605 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0720-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 N.M. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1569681 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/42/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 N.M. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2787509 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/69/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2851344 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359047 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N.M. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568707 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0009-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 517, "char_count": 10802, "ocr_confidence": 0.782, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8494917210785706e-07, "percentile": 0.7233145638992853 }, "sha256": "d6a0d10fbfffeba7cbc5b498f72e399e9029e698cd6a10dc6bd482e3486c0d05", "simhash": "1:901edd8a5902427b", "word_count": 1731 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:51.585150+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Robert BRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nNEAL, Judge.\nIn this workmen\u2019s compensation action plaintiff was denied relief because he had settled with a third party tortfeasor and therefore, under the provisions of \u00a7 52-1-56(C), N.M.S.A. 1978, he was not entitled to recover workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.\nPlaintiff contends: (1) that the trial court erred in finding no inequitable conduct on the part of defendant; (2) plaintiff did not make an election of remedies under \u00a7 52-1-56(C); and (3) plaintiff is entitled to workmen\u2019s compensation because the employer was not prejudiced.\nThe plaintiff, age 58, has an eleventh grade education and was employed by defendant as a driller. On February 20, 1980, while driving a company truck, he was struck by a vehicle driven by Michael Drain (third party). Plaintiff was in the hospital for one week. His supervisor, Ed Johnson, brought workmen\u2019s compensation claim papers to the hospital, and thereafter mailed the papers to the company. A representative of State Farm Insurance, insurance carrier for the third party, contacted Ed Johnson and told Johnson that they wanted to see the plaintiff. Johnson went to the hospital to tell the plaintiff to see the State Farm representative. On February 27, the day after the plaintiff was released from the hospital, a representative of the defendant\u2019s workmen\u2019s compensation carrier took a statement from the plaintiff for the purpose of processing his workmen\u2019s compensation claim. Ed Johnson set up an appointment for February 27 with State Farm (the third party\u2019s insurance company) and told plaintiff to be sure to keep the appointment. On February 27, at the meeting with State Farm, plaintiff received a check from State Farm for $1250.21. State Farm also paid hospital bills totaling $1113.75. No negotiation or settlement took place on February 27. On March 3, 1980, plaintiff called defendant\u2019s compensation insurance carrier and talked to Babette Beeler, an adjuster for the compensation carrier. Plaintiff testified:\n\u201c * * * well, I told her if I didn\u2019t get a settlement with State Farm then I wanted my compensation, and she said she had the compensation papers right on her desk, and she told me to call back in a half hour, so I called back * * * and talked to her again and she told me to call the State Farm representative in Las Cruces and gave me his phone number.\u201d\nPlaintiff needed the State Farm representative\u2019s phone number because he couldn\u2019t find it. Plaintiff further testified that Beeler, the compensation carrier\u2019s representative, knew that he was \u201csettling\u201d or \u201cdickering\u201d with State Farm. Plaintiff further testified that no one told him that settling the claim with State Farm would affect his workmen\u2019s compensation. Later that day, March 3, 1980, plaintiff went to the State Farm office in Las Cruces and signed a formal release for $3800.00, in addition to the money previously paid.\nBabette Beeler, representative of defendant\u2019s compensation carrier, testified that when plaintiff called her on March 3 he stated that he \u201cwas not interested in making a compensation claim; that he wanted to retire.\u201d Beeler testified the workmen\u2019s compensation carrier for the defendant testified that she made no promise or representation to the plaintiff on March 3. Beeler also testified that she did not know what effect a settlement would have on plaintiff\u2019s compensation claim, and that, concerning settlement, she had no idea anything was taking place. She did testify, however, that she knew he intended to settle but thought it might be \u201csix months from then;\u201d she had no idea when he might settle. She testified she did not try to mislead the plaintiff, and that when she talked to the plaintiff on March 3, she didn\u2019t know he was going to settle with State Farm later that day.\nPlaintiff settled with the third party tortfeasor, and at trial sought to avoid the consequences of his act by claiming defendants\u2019 inequitable conduct should not prevent his compensation claim.\n1. Defendants\u2019 conduct.\nThere is substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the defendants did not wrongfully mislead plaintiff into settling his claim. Findings in a workmen\u2019s compensation case will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to support the findings. Marez v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation, 93 N.M. 9, 595 P.2d 1204 (Ct.App.1978). Ed Johnson, plaintiff\u2019s supervisor, did tell plaintiff to \u201cbe sure and go\u201d to his appointment with State Farm. Plaintiff, however, testified that Johnson was a \u201cgood friend.\u201d Johnson testified that he knew only about filing accident reports, and didn\u2019t know anything about workmen\u2019s compensation law. Johnson further testified that he didn\u2019t know plaintiff was negotiating for a settlement, and that he gave no advice to plaintiff pertaining to the settlement.\nThere is evidence that Babette Beeler, the compensation carrier representative, did not mislead plaintiff and that she did not encourage or discourage him from settling his claim. She testified that plaintiff told her that he was not interested in making a compensation claim and that he was going to retire. She further testified that she did not know the effect of a settlement, and did not know if or when plaintiff was going to settle.\nThere is substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding that neither Ed Johnson nor Babette Beeler wrongfully misled plaintiff into settling his third party claim.\nPlaintiff challenges the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law that defendant was under no affirmative duty to advise plaintiff of the effect of a settlement. It is true that equitable claims, including estoppel, apply to workmen\u2019s compensation claims. Anaya v. City of Santa Fe, 80 N.M. 54, 451 P.2d 303 (1969). Plaintiff argues that Joy\u2019s compensation representative, Babette Beeler, was under an affirmative duty to inform plaintiff that if he settled he would not get workmen\u2019s compensation benefits, and not having done so plaintiff should be able to recover compensation. We have been unable to find a case, nor have we been cited to one which, under the facts of this case, places such a duty on the defendant-employer or their insurance companies. The trial court was correct in concluding that the defendants were under no affirmative duty to tell plaintiff the effect of a settlement.\n2. Election of remedies.\nPlaintiff next argues that he did not make an election of remedies under \u00a7 52-1-56(C) because he did not make a knowledgeable election; he did not know that by settling he would be barred from recovering workmen\u2019s compensation. Defendants, however, were under no duty to inform the plaintiff of the effect of settlement, therefore plaintiff is fully responsible for his actions; he cannot complain that he had no knowledge.\n3. Prejudice to employer.\nFinally, plaintiff argues that because the employer\u2019s right to reimbursement has not been prejudiced he should be allowed to recover workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. He argues (1) that \u00a7 52-1-56(C) is a reimbursement statute; (2) that \u00a7 52-1-56(C) protects employer\u2019s right of reimbursement; and (3) therefore, if the employer\u2019s right of reimbursement has not been prejudiced, the workman can still collect compensation benefits.\nSection 52-1-56(C), N.M.S.A. 1978 provides:\nThe right of any workman * * * to receive payment or damages for injuries occasioned to him by the negligence or wrong of any person other than the employer * * * shall not be affected by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, but he * * shall not be allowed to receive payment or recover damages therefor and also claim compensation from the employer\nThe statute then explains that if the employer has paid workmen\u2019s compensation benefits receipt of compensation benefits from the employer operates as an assignment to the employer of any cause of action to the extent the employer has paid compensation to the workman. The purpose of this section is two-fold: to prevent dual recovery, Brown v. Arapahoe Drilling Company, 70 N.M. 99, 370 P.2d 816 (1962), and to provide reimbursement for employers, Reed v. Styron, 69 N.M. 262, 365 P.2d 912 (1961).\nThe law in New Mexico is clear that having recovered from a third party tortfeasor, a workman is barred from receiving workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. Section 52-1-56(C), supra; White v. New Mexico Highway Commission, 42 N.M. 626, 83 P.2d 457 (1938); Thomas v. Barber\u2019s Super Markets, Inc., 74 N.M. 720, 398 P.2d 51 (1964). Where a claimant has sought relief from a third party the amount of the recovery is for the full loss or detriment suffered by the injured party and makes him financially whole, and thus any subsequent compensation claim is barred. Castro v. Bass, 74 N.M. 254, 392 P.2d 668 (1964); Seminara v. Frank Seminara Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 95 N.M. 22, 618 P.2d 366 (Ct.App.1980).\nPlaintiff\u2019s argument is faulty for the following reasons. First, it assumes that the statute\u2019s sole purpose is to protect the employer\u2019s right to reimbursement. This is not so. One object of the statute is to prevent dual recovery. Brown, supra. Second, plaintiff relies on Lang v. William Brothers Boiler and Manufacturing Company, 250 Minn. 521, 85 N.W.2d 412 (1957). However, Minnesota law provides concurrent remedies for the employer and the workman. An election is not necessary. Thus, Lang is not applicable. Our statute, \u00a7 52-1-56(C), provides for a single cause of action. Reed, supra. An election is required. Third, plaintiff\u2019s argument focuses on the employer\u2019s right of reimbursement, a right which follows payment of compensation but does not precede it. Brown, supra. In this case the employer never paid any compensation. The workman is free to pursue the third party action on his own and the employer is not a necessary party. Herrera v. Springer Corporation, 85 N.M. 6, 508 P.2d 1303 (Ct.App.1973), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 85 N.M. 201, 510 P.2d 1072 (1973). The workman pursued his claim and recovered. Because workmen\u2019s compensation was never paid there was never a right or reimbursement. Brown, supra. Any effect on the employer\u2019s non-existent right of reimbursement is irrelevant; plaintiff\u2019s right to workmen\u2019s compensation does not depend on a right to reimbursement which never came into existence.\nWe affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "NEAL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Wayne Woodbury, Silver City, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Larry Ramirez, Las Cruces, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "642 P.2d 198\nRobert BRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 5180.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nFeb. 2, 1982.\nCertiorari Quashed March 12, 1982.\nJ. Wayne Woodbury, Silver City, for plaintiff-appellant.\nLarry Ramirez, Las Cruces, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0595-01", "first_page_order": 625, "last_page_order": 628 }