{
  "id": 1584526,
  "name": "ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. Procopio A. MONTANO, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "ABF Freight System v. Montano",
  "decision_date": "1982-12-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 14294",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "261",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 N.M. 259"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "657 P.2d 115"
    }
  ],
  "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": "80 N.M. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5360910
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2823944,
        2822245
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0657-01",
        "/nm/86/0657-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2821161
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "521 P.2d 127",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2821414
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.M. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2749848
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "447"
        },
        {
          "page": "774",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "447"
        },
        {
          "page": "774"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0444-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 4278,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.805,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.9969359047975767e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8521282514926546
    },
    "sha256": "a2428e697625648e76e4ed7146657a42c9b313c0d55f5acd0d3c5ee0b7d30a39",
    "simhash": "1:16e903633505d4f9",
    "word_count": 688
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:40.875408+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PAYNE, C.J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. Procopio A. MONTANO, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nRIORDAN, Justice.\nProcopio A. Montano (Plaintiff) filed suit against his employer, ABF Freight System (Defendant), under New Mexico Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, Sections 52-1-1 through 52-1-69, N.M.S.A.1978 (Orig.Pamp. and Cum.Supp.1982), for injury to his back. The trial court found that Plaintiff\u2019s claim for workmen\u2019s compensation benefits was barred by Section 52-1-31. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. We granted certiorari and we reverse the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion interpreted the workmen\u2019s compensation statute of limitations, Section 52-1-31, to mean that before the statutory period begins to run, the workman must actually insist on the payment of compensation and the employer must fail or refuse to pay any installments.\nThis is contrary to existing case law in New Mexico. In Noland v. Young Drilling Company, 79 N.M. 444, 444 P.2d 771 (Ct. App.1968), the Court of Appeals previously held that the statutory period begins to run \u201c[a]s soon as it becomes reasonably apparent, or should become reasonably apparent to a workman that he has an injury on account of which he is entitled to compensation and the employer fails or refuses to make payment he has a right to file a claim and the statute begins to run from that date.\u201d Id. at 447, 444 P.2d at 774 (emphasis added).\nThe following findings of fact were made by the trial court. On or about February 4, 1972, Plaintiff injured his back while unloading boxes during the course of his employment. After a stay in the hospital, Plaintiff returned to full-time employment with Defendant and resumed the same job. However, Plaintiff had a disability as evidenced \u201cby his working with pain, by the reduction of his activities of his employment, by his requesting others to assist him in the duties of his employment, by his seeking medical attention and by his application of home remedies to relieve his pain and disability.\u201d When Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 23, 1980, he was beyond the required statutory period when it either became or should have become reasonably apparent to Plaintiff that he had an injury entitling him to workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. Therefore, Plaintiff\u2019s claim for compensation recovery was barred.\nIt is a recognized rule that appellate courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the trial court in weighing the evidence. If the trial court\u2019s findings are supported by substantial evidence, they must be affirmed. First National Bank of Santa Fe v. Wood, 86 N.M. 165, 521 P.2d 127 (1974). We have reviewed the record and transcript and find substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s findings.\nPlaintiff did not file within the required time, therefore, his claim is barred. Romero v. American Furniture Company, 86 N.M. 661, 526 P.2d 803 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 86 N.M. 657, 526 P.2d 799 (1974); Cordova v. Union Baking Company, 80 N.M. 241, 453 P.2d 761 (Ct.App.1969); Noland v. Young Drilling Company, supra. The Court of Appeals is reversed and the trial court\u2019s decision reinstated.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nPAYNE, C.J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, J., concur.\n. Plaintiff had a maximum of two (2) years and thirty-one (31) days to file his workmen\u2019s compensation claim. Under Section 52-1-30, N.M. S.A. 1978, the first installment of compensation is to be paid not later than thirty-one days from the date of the occurrence of the disability. Under Section 52-1-31, N.M.S.A.1978, the one year statutory period ;s tolled during the time the workman remains employed by the employer for whom he was employed at the time of the accidental injury, up to a maximum of one additional year.\n. At the point it became or should have become reasonably apparent to Plaintiff that workmen\u2019s compensation benefits were owed, the Defendant by not doing anything \u201cfailed ... to make payment\u201d. Noland v. Young Drilling Company, 79 N.M. 444, 447, 444 P.2d 771, 774 (Ct.App.1968) (emphasis added).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "RIORDAN, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, W.A. Sloan, Albuquerque, for petitioner.",
      "Franchini, Henderson & Wagner, Kenneth R. Wagner, Albuquerque, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "657 P.2d 115\nABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. Procopio A. MONTANO, Respondent.\nNo. 14294.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nDec. 7, 1982.\nRehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1983.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, W.A. Sloan, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nFranchini, Henderson & Wagner, Kenneth R. Wagner, Albuquerque, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 291,
  "last_page_order": 293
}