{ "id": 1584587, "name": "James Douglas McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Employer, a self-insured municipality, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "McDaniel v. City of Albuquerque", "decision_date": "1982-10-26", "docket_number": "No. 5703", "first_page": "54", "last_page": "56", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "99 N.M. 54" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "653 P.2d 885" } ], "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": "174 Cal.Rptr. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Cal.App.3d 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2058346 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/119/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N.M. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1577266 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/96/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 N.M. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582444 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/98/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 L.Ed.2d 136", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 S.Ct. 1171", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 976", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6305373, 6304938, 6304492, 6304721, 6304180, 6303925, 6305181 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0976-07", "/us/386/0976-05", "/us/386/0976-03", "/us/386/0976-04", "/us/386/0976-02", "/us/386/0976-01", "/us/386/0976-06" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2809901 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5321536 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0485-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 6616, "ocr_confidence": 0.78, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.810631404127513e-08, "percentile": 0.4968892008761901 }, "sha256": "482c51d601ecbaf768da766e391c43a0e70496db9f1e54631a3b22500d0ef18b", "simhash": "1:34fc4cecd54e51cf", "word_count": 1057 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:40.875408+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "DONNELLY and NEAL, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "James Douglas McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Employer, a self-insured municipality, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nPlaintiff was employed as a police officer. On the evening of February 18, 1981, plaintiff was brought to the police station at the direction of the deputy police chief for an administrative inquiry. Plaintiff sought worker\u2019s compensation benefits on the basis of his alleged \u201cnervous breakdown\u201d that occurred during the inquiry. The trial court ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation benefits; plaintiff appealed. Disability, or injury, is not an issue in the appeal. The briefs present three issues \u2014 whether there was an accident; if there was an accident, whether it arose out of plaintiff\u2019s employment; and if there was an accident, whether it was in the course of employment. Section 52-l-28(A)(l), N.M. S.A.1978. We discuss only the \u201carising out of\u201d issue inasmuch as that issue is dispositive. The trial court concluded that plaintiff\u2019s psychiatric problems did not arise out of his employment. The question is whether the findings support this legal conclusion. See Goldie v. Yaker, 78 N.M. 485, 432 P.2d 841 (1967).\nThe following findings of the trial court are pertinent to the \u201carising out of\u201d question; each of the findings is supported by substantial evidence.\nThe trial court found:\n(a) An intimate personal relationship had existed between plaintiff and Karen Pawley for approximately two years prior to February 18, 1981.\n(b) The personal relationship had become strained and Pawley was attempting to break off the relationship.\n(c) \u201cThat on February 14, 1981, Plaintiff, while off duty, entered the residence of Gary Faerber without permission; Plaintiff brandished a gun at Karen Pawley and Gary Faerber; Plaintiff forced them to lie on the floor and threatened their lives over a three hour period.\u201d\n(d) \u201cOn February 17, 1981, Plaintiff, while off duty, broke down the front door to Karen Pawley\u2019s parent\u2019s house, ripping out four locks, and entered that residence without permission.\u201d\n(e) \u201cThat on February 17, 1981, Plaintiff brandished a gun and restricted the movements of Karen Pawley and some members of her family; Plaintiff threatened her life and his own over a four to six hour period.\u201d\n(f) \u201cThat Karen Pawley and her mother related the events of February 14 lnd [sic] 17 to Deputy Chief Jack Martin on February 18, 1981.\u201d\n(g) \u201cOn February 18, 1981, Deputy Chief Jack Martin instructed four members of the Albuquerque Police Department to find James McDaniel and to bring him downtown for administrative inquiry concerning those events.\u201d\n(h) \u201cDeputy Chief Martin expressed concern that James McDaniel might be dangerous or unstable because of his earlier activities on the 14th and 17th of February, 1981.\u201d\n(i) \u201cThe administrative action to bring James McDaniel downtown to see Deputy Chief Martin was controlled and incident free.\u201d\n(j) \u201cThat the treatment received by Officer James McDaniel during the administrative procedure was less traumatic than the treatment a private citizen accused of similar conduct could expect to be subjected to.\u201d\n(k) \u201cThat all of James McDaniel\u2019s actions relating to Karen Pawley had nothing to do with his employment as a police officer at the Albuquerque Police Department and were solely related to his private life.\u201d\nThe deputy police chief testified that the information he received from Pawley and her mother indicated that various felonies had been committed. The felonies included false imprisonment, burglary and assault. The information supplied by Pawley and her mother provided probable cause to ar- ' rest plaintiff on felony charges. See State v. Deltenre, 77 N.M. 497, 424 P.2d 782 (1966), cert. denied 386 U.S. 976, 87 S.Ct. 1171, 18 L.Ed.2d 136 (1967).\nDespite the existence of probable cause, plaintiff was not arrested. Because the complaints were against a police officer, the deputy police chief felt it was \u201can administrative matter, first of all.\u201d Asked if his actions would have been different if the complaints were not about a police officer, the deputy police chief answered: \u201cYes, they would have been different in the sense that it would have been criminal and we would have been talking about making an arrest on probable cause.\u201d\nThe requirement in \u00a7 52-1-28(A)(1), supra, that the accidental injury arise out of the employment relates to cause. Hernandez v. Home Educ. Livelihood Program, 98 N.M. 125, 645 P.2d 1381 (App.1982). The \u201carising out of\u201d requirement excludes an injury which cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause; the causative danger must be peculiar to the work, it must not be independent of the relation of master and servant. After the event it must appear that the accidental injury had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that risk as a rational consequence. Adamchek v. Gemm Enterprises, Inc., 96 N.M. 24, 627 P.2d 866 (1981).\nThe administrative inquiry was concerned solely with plaintiffs \u201cprivate life\u201d activities, not with his activities as a police officer. City of L.A. v. Workers\u2019 Comp. Appeals Bd., 119 Cal.App.3d 355, 174 Cal.Rptr. 25 (1981), states:\nIn our view a police officer who is accused of criminal activity which pertains to matters outside of his functioning as a police officer is in no different a position from any private citizen accused of criminal activity. In the event such accusations should prove to be false, his rights should be no greater than any to which the ordinary private citizen is entitled since such accusation dealt not with his actions in the capacity of a police officer but in the capacity of a private citizen.\nThus, we hold that applicant\u2019s injury herein is not compensable under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act if his psychiatric condition is the sole consequence of the Police Department\u2019s accusation and investigation of his alleged criminal activities in his capacity as a private citizen and of other non-work related factors. [Emphasis in original.]\nThe trial court\u2019s findings support the conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s psychiatric problems did not arise out of his employment as a police officer.\nThe judgment denying compensation is affirmed. This being a free process appeal by the worker, no appellate costs are awarded. Section 52-1-39, N.M.S.A.1978.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nDONNELLY and NEAL, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "James A. Mungle, P.A., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "George R. Bryan, III, Freddie J. Romero, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "653 P.2d 885\nJames Douglas McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Employer, a self-insured municipality, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 5703.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nOct. 26, 1982.\nJames A. Mungle, P.A., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nGeorge R. Bryan, III, Freddie J. Romero, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0054-01", "first_page_order": 86, "last_page_order": 88 }