New Mexico Injury Attorney Blog

In New Mexico, the Worker's Compensation Act was purportedly enacted to protect workers for on the job injuries. The Act it is said provides certainly to an injured worker who can obtain needed medical care and lost wages for work related injuries. This is partly true.

The Act does provide for medical coverage and a portion of lost wages for injured workers. The lost wages are limited in both time and amount. Typically, the allowable recovery for lost wages leaves the injured worker largely uncompensated. At the rates provided under the Act, lost wages will often leave an injured worker and his or her family in severe financial hardship.

Unfortunately for most injured workers, no matter how serious the injury or how the injury was caused, recovery for personal injuries is limited to medical expense and lost wages as set forth by the Act. This means that workers, except under very rarely circumstances, cannot sue their employer for personal injuries even if the employer caused the injuries.

However, in order to obtain protection under the Workers Compensation Act, the employer must carry workers compensation insurance as mandated under the Act. As a result, those employers who do not comply with the insurance coverage requirements under the Act are fully exposed to personal injury lawsuits for injuries to their workers.

In short, if you are injured on the job, and your employer does not have workers compensation insurance, then you may sue to the employer in tort for personal injuries. Because the uninsured employer is not protected under the Act, the employer is fully liable for all damages recoverable in a personal injury lawsuit.

If you or a loved one have been injured on the job, you should immediately make a worker's compensation claim. We do not handle worker's compensation claims at Collins & Collins, P.C. There are very short and critical deadlines for worker's compensation claims. Therefore you should contact a worker's compensation attorney immediately if you have any questions. There a number of very good worker's compensation attorneys Albuquerque and elsewhere throughout New Mexico.

If your employer does not have worker's compensation insurance and the accident was caused by unsafe working conditions or other negligent actions of your employer, then you should contact an experienced personal injury attorney to evaluate your claims. In the absence of worker's compensation insurance, you may be able to recover through a personal injury lawsuit. In fact, depending on the circumstances, your recovery may be far greater in a personal injury lawsuit than it would have been through worker's compensation.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Many personal injury victims are surprised and/or shocked to learn that there are many different lien holders that are going to get a piece of their settlement. On occasion, these liens may prevent a case from settling. On other occasions, the liens and the difficulty settling these liens may deter many attorneys from taking smaller claims at all.

Depending on the nature of the medical care and medical insurance coverage, there could be all manners of medical liens on any recovery, settlement or verdict. The first and easiest to address is private medical insurance. This is often the one that upsets injured parties the most feeling that they should not have to repay medical costs covered by significant insurance premiums often paid for years prior to a claim. As much as it may pain the insured to repay his insurance company, it must be done.

Work related injuries typically will carry workers compensation insurance liens. A work related personal injury claim presumes a third party other than the employer caused the accident and resulting injuries and damages. The workers compensation insurance provider will want to and has every right to recover medical costs necessitated by the third party's negligence.

Private insurance and workers compensation insurance are relatively easy to address. The more difficult liens are those asserted by governmental programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health and the Veterans Administration. The end result is often the same with liens being negotiated down on a number of different grounds. However, getting there can be a long, tedious and frustrating process for both the client and the attorney.

Like private medical insurance and workers compensation insurance, the medical costs associated with the accident must be identified. This is typically fairly straightforward, though time-consuming with private insurance and workers compensation insurance. It is a matter of collecting all the medical records and bills associated with the medical care associated with the accident. On occasion, there can be some complications determining what bills and records are associated with the accident and what is related to other treatment and/or prior medical conditions. One advantage of workers compensation insurance is that they generally have done this already as they monitor medical care pretty closely on work related injuries.

On the other hand, in accidents involving coverage under Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health and the VA, obtaining the medical records and bills can seem like an impossible task. It can take months upon months to obtain the records. And obtaining the records is just the first step. The records and bills must then be closely reviewed to sort out what is and what is not related to the accident. Rest assured, the original records, bills and associated liens will include far more than is actually related to the accident.

Then comes the fun part which is trying to get somebody on the phone at one of these entities with authority to negotiate the bills and liens. This again can be challenging to put it lightly. Again, weeks and months can pass before getting the right person on the phone if you do not know who it is you need to contact. And even when you do, these folks are somewhat overwhelmed and it can be hard getting their attention. It can be equally hard keeping it.

As difficult as the government sometimes makes it to address these liens, they must be addressed. They must be addressed before final settlement. Failure to address these liens before final settlement can have disastrous financial consequences for the client, and the lawyer. The lien settlement process in fact can take as long or longer than the injury settlement process. In fact, the inability to settle these liens in a timely manner may force the filing of an otherwise unnecessary lawsuit to avoid the lapse of the statute of limitations.

If you have a claim with these types of issues involved, it is highly advisable to seek the guidance of an experience personal injury attorney. However, you should also know that these issues make the case much more difficult and time-consuming to resolve. The reality is that many attorneys will shy away from these claims unless there is a significant potential for recovery.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

In auto accidents cases, one might expect that the driving record of the negligent driver would be fully admissible at trial to help show that the person was at fault for the subject accident. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

For instance, pre-accident driving records are not admissible to show the driver was negligent in the current accident. However, it may be admissible for other purposes such as a negligent entrustment claim. A negligent entrustment claim most often arises where an employer allows an employee with a bad driving record to drive a company vehicle. The company may then be held liable for any injuries or other damages caused by the employee under a negligent entrustment theory.

Post-accident driving records, no matter how bad, are often inadmissible at trial. Neither past driving behavior nor future driving behavior can be used to show the person was negligent in the current auto accident. Neither may future driving be used to prove a habit of bad driving under New Mexico law. Finally, unlike past driving behavior, future driving is not admissible on a negligent entrustment claim.

In order to show negligent entrustment, the company must have known of the employee's negligent driving habits. The company may be held to knowledge of the employee's prior driving behavior. This is the case even if the company does not have direct knowledge but could have discovered the driving history through background checks.

On the other hand, an employer cannot be imputed knowledge of bad driving habits based upon future driving behavior. Thus, without more, the employer will not be held liable under theories of negligent entrustment for the employee's actions in causing an auto accident. The employer may very well be liable on a number of other grounds, but not by way of negligent entrustment.

In short, though one might expect the driving behavior of a negligent driver to be most relevant evidence to prove fault, there are fairly strict limits on when and for what purpose driving behavior is admissible at trial in a car accident case. The injured person may simply have to rely on other evidence of fault than the driving history or driving habits of the other driver.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

People are often injured at work. In fact, in 2007 alone, there were almost 4 million work related injuries over 5000 of which were fatal. On many occasions, these injuries are caused by individuals outside the injured worker's employer.

The most immediate question that arises for an injured worker in this situation is who is responsible for his or her injuries. The answer is both the employer and the third party. However, this answer is qualified by the Worker's Compensation Act.

The employer is required by New Mexico law under the Worker's Compensation Act to carry worker's compensation insurance for all work related injuries. Therefore the injured worker can and should make a worker's compensation claim through the employer's insurance.

In return for compliance with the Worker's Compensation Act, the employer is sheltered from personal injury lawsuits by the employee in all but the rarest situations. In fact, the employer's gross negligence is not enough to waive the protections of the Worker's Compensation Act.

In short, the employer will not be liable in tort for any injuries suffered by the worker. The employer's liability and the worker's right to recover against the employer are both limited to recovery under the Worker's Compensation Act.

Unfortunately, the Worker's Compensation coverage is often grossly inadequate to cover the full spectrum of damages in cases of serious or catastrophic work related injuries. Though the Worker's Compensation Act limits the employer's liability, it does not limit the liability of third parties that caused the harm.

There are countless situations where the worker's injuries were caused by third parties. These include injuries caused by contractors, sub-contractors, vendors, customers, visitors, guests and others that come in contact with the worker during the course of a workday. Among the most common are auto accidents.

By way of example, in case of an auto accident, the worker would be limited to recovery against the employer under the Worker's Compensation Act even if the employer were partly responsible for the accident. This would be the case in virtually all cases unless the conduct of the employer met the very employer friendly standards set forth in Delgado v. Phelps Dodge. Though the worker may assert a worker's compensation claim in this case, the worker would be well advised to explore recovery from the other driver.

The same would hold true for any other work related injury caused by a third party. Due to the severe limitations on recovery under the Worker's Compensation Act, it may well be that full recovery for the worker's injuries and damages will come only through the third party.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The recent New Mexico Court of Appeals case of May v. DCP Midstream illustrates as clearly as anything the lack of worker's remedies for work injuries caused by their employer's negligence. The case shows the absolute disdain for worker safety embodied by the Worker's Compensation Act which is purportedly for the protection of workers.

In a nutshell, the Court granted the defendant summary judgment on May's personal injury claims because the evidence failed to meet the extraordinary requirements established by Delgado v. Phelps Dodge. The case is remarkable in its blunt statement of a worker's right to compensation for the negligence of his or her employer.

The case involved a gas pipeline that was altered for special maintenance procedures. Despite warnings from employees regarding danger to workers, the company failed to return the pipeline to its normal operational condition. The failure to return the pipeline to its normal condition created significant safety hazards to workers. The defendant admitted that the altered condition of the pipeline created an unnecessary and dangerous condition to employees. The defendant also admitted that it knew of the danger and should have returned the pipeline to its normal operational condition.

Mr. May was indeed badly injured while working on the pipeline. He filed suit for personal injuries caused by the gross negligence of his employer. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of the Worker's Compensation exclusivity provisions under the Act which limit a worker's recovery to worker's compensation coverage. The remedies under the Worker's Compensation Act are generally grossly inadequate in cases of serious personal injuries. Specifically, no punitive damages are allowed no matter how egregious the employer's conduct.

Remarkably, the Court stated "there is little doubt that Defendants were negligent, perhaps even grossly negligent." However, gross negligence is not enough under New Mexico law. Under Delgado, the employer must have forced an employee "to perform a task in a specific dangerous circumstance in which the employer should have been clearly aware of a substantial likelihood of injury or death." Thus, the Court despite the evidence showing that the employer knew of the danger and failed to correct it despite the ease with which it could be done and the warnings from employees, found that employer was safe from liability beyond the Worker's Compensation Act.

The degree to which the Courts will go to protect employer's against liability for their grossly negligent conduct is captured by the following language from the Court:

"An employer's disregard for safety requirements designed to help prevent injury and death on the job does not mean that an employer "specifically and willfully caused the employee to enter harm's way, facing virtually certain serious injury or death, as contemplated under Delgado."

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The rights of workers in personal injury cases are extremely limited in New Mexico. Workers are typically limited to recovery through worker's compensation for work related injuries. It is amazing how far the courts will go to find the injuries to be work related to invoke workers' compensation exclusivity as indicated in seminal 1997 case of Espinosa v. Albuquerque Publishing.

In the Espinosa case, Larry Espinosa was struck by a vehicle driven by a fellow employee. All good so far as "work related" goes. However, Mr. Espinosa was not at work. He was walking to work. The incident occurred 30 minutes before his shift began and 2 miles from his place of employment.

The Court went to great lengths to classify the case as work related so as to invoke the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. In short, the Court found that the injury was work related thereby barring Mr. Espinosa from a personal injury claim. Instead, he was limited to the meager recovery allowed under the Workers' Compensation Act.

For exclusivity of remedies under the Act, it must be shown that the injury arose "in the course of his employment." The Court was able to twist the facts to fit within the Act through a broad interpretation of the so-called "going-and-coming rule." Essentially, since Mr. Espinosa was en route to work and the accident was the result of the negligence of a fellow employee, he was barred from any recovery for his injuries outside the Act.

Under the Workers' Compensation Act, workers have few rights and even fewer remedies when they are injured on the job. Workers' Compensation Exclusivity is extremely hard to overcome. This case as good as any illustrates just how far the Courts will go to protect employers from personal injury liability for their negligence and the negligence of their workers. This is of course done at the expense of injured workers all under the pretense of protecting workers.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act in Sarah Quintero v. State of New Mexico Department of Transportation. The case presented an interesting issue of first impression of whether the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy in the case of a worker employed by one agency of the State who was injured as a result of the negligence of another separate agency. The Court ruled that it did not.

The facts are pretty straightforward. Sarah Quintero worked for the Department of Public Safety. Her job required no travel. She used the State's public transportation system, provided by the Department of Transportation, for commuting to work. She was injured at a Park and Ride facility when she stepped into an unmarked, unlit, unprotected hole in the facility's parking lot. She suffered a compound fracture to her leg as a result of the accident. The Department of Public Safety terminated her employment and refused worker's compensation coverage for her injuries arguing that they were not work related.

This position did not stop the State from later arguing that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy when Ms. Quintero sued the State of New Mexico and the Department of Transportation for personal injuries in a premises liability action. The State argued for dismissal of her claims on the basis of workers' compensation exclusivity. The case illustrates the lengths to which employers, including the State of New Mexico, will go to avoid the fair compensation of their employees by invoking the protection of the Workers' Compensation Act. This case is particularly egregious since the State denied workers' compensation on one end, and attempted to enlist its protection on the other. Fortunately, the Court of Appeals was not inclined to adopt their abusive and opportunistic position.

The ruling rested primarily on two grounds. First, there is a general exception to workers' compensation coverage for travel to and from work known at the "going and coming rule." In fact, the rule is regularly invoked by employers to avoid workers' compensation coverage for workers' injured in route to or from work. Clearly, in this case, Ms. Quintero was en route to work which served the basis for the initial finding by her employer that her injuries were not work related.

Perhaps more importantly, the Court addressed the unfairness of a rule that would deny rights to all state or municipal employees who suffer injuries en route to work as a result of the negligence of the transportation or transit systems on which they travel. Clearly, a clerical worker traveling to work by road, bus or train is not doing so as part of their employment any more than any other citizen. Moreover, allowing such a broad interpretation of workers' compensation exclusivity would lead to the complete denial of a state employee's rights when dealing with any state agency. The outcome would be both absurd and profoundly unjust.

However, there are cases in New Mexico which have come to precisely that conclusion. So it may be expected that the State will appeal this ruling to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion in the case has lit the way. In light of the lengths to which the courts and the legislature will go to protect employers against their own negligence toward their employees, it will not be at all surprising if this case is reversed.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The seminal New Mexico case addressing worker's compensation exclusivity is the 2001 New Mexico Supreme Court case of Delgado v. Phelps Dodge. The case, despite the leap in the protection of workers over prior law, clearly illustrates the marginal protection employees are afforded from the negligent acts of their employers.

The Delgado case involved a fatal incident at a smelting plant where a worker suffering a horrifying death. The term incident is used because it was no accident that Delgado was burned to death. Instead, the facts showed that the employer clearly expected that Delgado would be killed while performing a task that he was grossly unqualified to perform.

The Delgado case illustrates the disdain with which workers are treated under the Worker's Compensation Act. The good and the bad news is that as a result of Delgado, workers enjoy slightly greater protection than in the past. In the past, New Mexico followed the "actual intent test." Delgado set forth the purportedly higher standard of willful and intentional.

The "actual intent test" is most clearly illustrated by the district court's granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The complaint alleged that the defendants "acted intentionally, with the knowledge that Delgado would be seriously injured and killed as a result of their actions." The district court, following the actual intent requirement, ruled that even if it was true that defendants "did engage in a series of deliberate or intentional acts which they knew or should have known would almost certainly result in serious injury or death to Reynaldo Delgado...the complaint falls short of alleging that [they] actually intended to harm Reynaldo Delgado." In short, the only way an employer could be sued beyond the Worker's Compensation Act was basically if they murdered the worker. How else may this language be read?

The Court in Delgado took the enlightened view that this standard was unacceptable. However, the Court went only slightly further in protecting workers injured as a result of the acts of employers. The Court held instead employers would lose the protection of the Workers Compensation Act only where the "employer willfully or intentionally injures a worker." The Court defined willfulness as follows: "(1) the worker or employer engages in an intentional act or omission, without just cause or excuse, that is reasonably expected to result in the injury suffered by the worker; (2) the worker or employer expects the injury to occur, or has utterly disregarded the consequences of the intentional act or omission; and (3) the intentional act or omission proximately causes the worker's injury."

The new standard is only slightly better than the old. In fact, employers continue to enjoy protection for gross negligence, and arguably for recklessness. Delgado still requires that the act reasonably be expected to lead to the injury of the worker. It further requires that the employer either totally disregarded the possible consequences or fully expected the injuries to occur. This is little better than the "actual intent test" and arguably mere word play. The result is the same, the employer must send a worker into a situation with a reasonable expectation that the worker will be injured or killed. Anything short of that and the employer is protected by the Worker's Compensation Act and the worker (or his survivors) is left to bear the burden of the employer's negligent behavior.

To be expected, the business community reacted with much the same repulsion to the Delgado ruling as did the defendant who warned the Court "that any deviation from the actual intent test will visit an undo hardship upon employers in this State and wreak havoc with New Mexico's workers' compensation system." It truly is tragic that employers can no longer send their employees to certain death. Honestly, what has New Mexico come to when we visit such injustice on our State's businesses?

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

There were 11,773 DWI deaths nationally in 2008. These numbers are alarming. It is absolutely unacceptable to allow drivers to endanger the safety of others. A drunk driving death has enormous consequences causing severe and irreparable damages for the family, the children, the friends and loved ones that survive. Those that cause these harms, or even threaten these harms, must be stopped at all costs. And when they do cause harm, they must be held fully accountable in every way. Personal responsibility is the foundation of democracy. Agreed?

Contrast these numbers, the outrage associated with these tragedies and the policies to address them with the myth of the medical malpractice crisis. The Hippocratic Oath states, "FIRST, DO NO HARM." It is hard to explain how this Oath justifies the rabid opposition to compensation of victims of medical negligence. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine estimates that up to 98,000 people die every year as a result of medical negligence. That is almost 9 times the number of DWI related deaths. Where is the outrage?

When viewed against this backdrop, the Hippocratic Oath is rendered meaningless. It is difficult to explain or justify until you realize what is really behind Tort Reform. There is another and overriding oath decreed by the Insurance Industry, the Hypocritic Oath, which states, "FIRST, SEE NO HARM." This explains why Tort Reformers can continue to rant about the mythical medical malpractice lawsuit crisis while denying the true crisis completely. The Hypocritic Oath explains why worker's compensation laws in every state provide pennies on the dollars for damages suffered by injured or killed workers. It explains why worker's compensation laws are drafted and enacted under the pretext of protecting workers when it is really to protect employers against responsibility from their own negligence, and sometimes recklessness, that leads to the injury or death of workers. It explains why these arguments can be made in the face of the reality that there are well over 5000 work related deaths a year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while thousands more suffer permanent and crippling non-fatal injuries, many of which are the result of unsafe working environments or conditions. It explains how Transocean can fight for liability limits of $27 million for its negligence in the BP spill while collecting hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate for its own losses from the very same spill. And on it goes. The Hypocritic Oath is everywhere you find the insurance industry.

The Hypocritic Oath dictates that the insurance industry, purportedly on behalf o their client corporations, doctors and employers should spend millions upon millions every year on Tort Reform to dodge their responsibilities to individuals and society. It dictates that taxpayers pick up the costs for their harms with Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, bank bailouts, TARP, disaster relief and assistance, liability caps and limits and countless other governmental measures made necessary by the Hypocritic Oath. Tort reform is not about protecting doctors. It certainly is not about protecting patients, workers, families or society. It is about protecting profits, plain and simple.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals case, Chairez v. James Hamilton Construction Co., discussed in my prior post also addressed issues related to exclusive remedy of worker's compensation for employees injured on the job. Most states have statutes similar to New Mexico limiting an injured worker's claims against a negligent employer to worker's compensation. As was the case in Chairez, there are exceptions for injuries caused as the result of the negligence of a third party.

In Chairez, the deceased plaintiff's estate (plaintiff) sued the manufacturer for a defective rock crusher under product liability law. The defendant's motion for summary judgment due to modification of the equipment by the plaintiff's employer was denied. It was clear that the employer's modification of the rock crusher by removing a critical safety feature was negligent and contributed to the death of the plaintiff.

Due to New Mexico's exclusive worker's compensation remedy against the employer, plaintiff was unable to bring a claim against the employer despite the employer's obvious negligence, and arguable recklessness. The court cited the seminal 2001 New Mexico Supreme Court case on the issue of Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino in support of its discussion.

The Court laid out the requirements set forth in Delgado for the waiver of worker's compensation protection by an employer. Delgado holds that an employee can bring an action against the employer for work related injuries in very rare situations. The court in Chairez stated the Delgado factors as; "(1) he or she can establish that the employer engaged in an intentional act or omission without just cause that is reasonably expected to result in the injury to the worker; (2) the employer expected the intentional act or omission to result in the injury; and (3) the intentional act or omission proximately caused the injury."

Thus, the hurdle for getting past worker's compensation exclusivity is very high. In Chairez, the plaintiff was unable to clear this hurdle despite the obvious negligence of the employer in removing the safety features from the rock crusher.

Unfortunately, New Mexico like most states, provides far greater protection for the employer than the injured employee. The statute is drafted as if it is meant to protect employees. In reality, it is there to protect employers. The result is that countless workers each year in New Mexico and in other states are gravely injured or killed by the negligence and/or recklessness of their employers. The root of the behavior is often economic as in Chairez where the safety mechanism was removed so that the rock crusher could be cleaned faster to minimize down time.

Worse still, workers or their surviving families receive only nominal awards from for their damages. They receive pennies on the dollar for their lost wages which may be permanent and total. They receive only trivial awards for the rather cynically and miserly computation of their impairment ratings for permanent injuries. They do receive medical costs, past and future, associated with the injury. If the insurance companies can find a way around this, they do. The injured employee receives no other compensation for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of household services or any other losses.

In the end, society pays through Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other governmental programs. Thus, taxpayers are left to cover losses that should rightfully be paid by the businesses that caused them.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed for the first time in under New Mexico law whether modifications to a product by the user provides a complete defense to a product liability claim. The court in Chairez v. James Hamilton Construction Co. held that it did not and that a seller could be held strictly liable under product liability law for injuries caused by the product when the modifications to the product were foreseeable.

The case involved the modification of a rock crushing machine. The user, the deceased plaintiff's employer, had removed a metal plate covering a flywheel to facilitate removing debris and obstructions in the machine that occurred during operation. The metal plate was a safety feature designed to prevent users from being caught in the flywheel and crushed by the machine. This is in fact what happened to the deceased plaintiff. In addition, the deceased had been removing a jam while the machine was operational despite clear warnings in the user's manual against such behavior.

The plaintiff was prevented from bringing a claim against the clearly negligent employer due to the exclusive worker's compensation remedy under New Mexico law. The plaintiff did bring an action against the defendant manufacturer under a product liability theory. The defendant argued that the modifications to the machine provided a complete defense to the product liability claim. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on this ground. The district court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the claims.

A number of states do indeed hold that alteration or modification of a product by an end user does provide a complete defense. However, as noted by the Court in Chairez, "Most states will not absolve a manufacturer or seller from liability as the result of an alteration or modification that was reasonably foreseeable." The court stated that New Mexico would follow the majority position.

The defendant had further argued that the modification was not foreseeable as a matter of law The court again disagreed holding that the issue of the foreseeability of the modification was an issue that should be left to the jury. The New Mexico Court of Appeals therefore reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The court was careful to add that it was by no means suggesting that the modification was foreseeable. Instead, the court reiterated that this was a question of fact best determined by a jury.

Likewise, the issue of the comparative negligence of the employer would need to be addressed by the jury. Assuming the jury did award damages to the plaintiff, the total amount of the award would then be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the employer. Unfortunately, the deceased plaintiff would be out of luck for this portion of the damage award due to the exclusive workers compensation remedy against the employer.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

It was announced last week that there has been a $657.5 million settlement to compensate around 10,000 workers harmed during the cleanup of Ground Zero in the 911 Terrorist Attack. Two obvious questions arise: Is it a fair settlement for the injured workers? Why the delay in settlement when the workers were obviously harmed during the cleanup?

The injured workers individual compensation will vary greatly depending on their injuries. Some will receive thousands while others may receive in excess of $1 million. Many of the injured workers have suffered severe and permanent physical injuries. Most of the injuries are respiratory in nature, the most common being asthma. Others have suffered from a variety of cancers, some of which have proven fatal.

There has never any doubt that these workers were injured as a result of the Ground Zero cleanup activities. In fact, the federal government set up a $1.1 billion dollar fund which was and remains available to handle these claims. So why did it take so long to settle these claims?

Plaintiff's trial lawyers get knocked around a lot in the media. They are an easy and popular target for politicians of every stripe. But what about the defense trial attorneys? It takes 2 to tango as they say.

The New York Times reported that the insurance company for the City of New York handling these claims, the WTC Captive Insurance Company, paid attorneys $200 million in legal fees to defend against these claims. The plaintiff's trial attorneys are already taking heat for their fees and the judge is looking at knocking them down by 50% or more. No such movement is afoot to reduce the $200 million paid to the insurance defense firm.

The plaintiff's firm was working purely on contingency, taking huge risks, with huge financial investment, and huge commitments of time with the possibility that they get nothing in case of a loss at trial. By contrast, the defense firm was able to accumulate $200 million in legal fees defending the indefensible knowing full well that the case would settle prior to trial. All this, while there was a $1.1 billion fund available to settle these claims.

So, again, why the delay in settlement of these obviously meritorious claims? Perhaps, as they say, the case was not ripe for settlement. It takes a long time to run up $200 million in defense attorney fees.

Is the settlement fair? Let's see. There were 10,000 injured workers. This would allow for about $65,700 per worker assuming the settlement is spread evenly among the workers which it is not. However, the settlement may be reduced to $575 million if more than 95% of the workers do not consent to the settlement. That knocks it down to $57,500 per worker. The defense attorneys will take $200 million for successfully dragging out the litigation for years. The $1.1 billion insurance fund is left with $442.5 million. The workers will continue to suffer from their injuries for the remainder of their lives.

In the coming weeks and months as the debate rages over the fairness of the suit, rest assured the focus of the debate for many will not be on the unjust denial and delay of the workers rightful claims, or the under-compensation of many of the more seriously injured workers, it will be on the fees earned by the plaintiffs' trial attorneys. When the debate arises, and it will, I hope some thoughtful commentators in their attack on plaintiff trial attorneys, will also consider the fact that the defense of the indefensible claim is often at the root of litigation. And most importantly, the question will be asked whether these workers can rest in knowing that they and their families will be justly compensated and their future medical needs will be met.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Work related injuries in New Mexico, as in most states, typically leave the injured workers grossly under-compensated in cases of serious or permanent injuries or wrongful death. With on the job injuries, the worker is typically limited to recovery under the Workers Compensation Act.

There are exceptions. An injured worker can recover damages beyond the limits of the workers compensation statutes when a third party has caused the injuries by suing that third party. In addition, in the case of on the job auto accidents in work vehicles, the injured worker may obtain additional relief under the employer's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

The recent case of Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin (consolidated with Federated Service Insurance v. Martinez) forcefully reiterates the right to recovery under an employer's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. In these consolidated cases, employees had been injured in auto accidents while driving their work vehicles. In both cases, the other driver was underinsured. Likewise, in both cases, the injured worker made claims against the employer's uninsured/underinsured coverage on the vehicles.

Naturally, the insurance companies in both cases denied coverage. In both cases, the insurance companies argued that it was the intent of the insured employers to reject uninsured/underinsured coverage. However, there was no written rejection of uninsured/uninsured motorist coverage (UM/UIM). In the case of Lockheed Martin, there was an X on a form indicating that UM/UIM had been rejected. However, it was not clear who put the X on the form and only after the accident did Lockheed Martin actually sign a written rejection. Neither was there a signed written rejection in the Federated case though it was clear that the insured employer intended to reject coverage.

The Court ruled that though an actual signature was not required to reject coverage,and the rejection did not have to be attached to the policy, the rejection did have to be in writing no matter what the intentions of the parties. The Court recognized that the requirement of a writing was set forth in NMAC §13.12.3.9. The Court also recognized the problems with interpreting unwritten intentions, the possibility of fraud on the injured worker in these cases to avoid underinsured/uninsured coverage, and the litigation that would ensue if the writing requirement were not in place.

If you are injured on the job in a work vehicle as a result of negligence other than your own negligence, you may be entitled to recovery of damages beyond those limitations set forth in the workers compensation act. If the other party lacks insurance or is underinsured, and you have suffered serious or permanent injuries, then you should determine the availability of uninsured/underinsured coverage on your employer's vehicle(s). Due to the severe limitations of workers compensation, and the lack of insurance with the other driver, this may be the only way to recover fully on your injuries and other damages.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The family of a worker killed in a construction accident in Texas reached a settlement with the contractor and subcontractors in a wrongful death lawsuit for the seemingly low amount of $440,000.00. The low number probably suggests issues of comparative fault on the part of the deceased worker and his employer.

Luis Lara was a 23 year old construction worker. He was working on a construction job site in Mesquite, Texas, just outside of Dallas, where workers were lifted to upper floors of the job site with a forklift. As he was being lifting in a box by the forklift, the box tipped from the forklift sending him falling 2 stories to the ground where he hit a metal beam. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The family sued both the contractor and the subcontractors for Mr. Lara's wrongful death. It was alleged that the contractor CME Builders and the subcontractors, Frontier Framing and Associated Truss & Lumber, used the forklift in a negligent manner contrary to the equipment's instructions as well as construction industry safety regulations. Past negligence and OSHA citations by Frontier Framing bolstered the claims of negligence against the defendants.

The defendants argued comparative negligence on the part of Mr. Lara which probably played a role in the relatively low wrongful death award of only $440,000.00. The injuries and damages to Mr. Lara and his family probably far exceeded this amount. Mr. Lara's estate was entitled to recover for the wrongful death itself. The loss of life alone suggests a much higher settlement or jury verdict absent issues of comparative negligence.

In addition, because Mr. Lara was only 23 years old, and had his full work life ahead of him, the lost future earnings could far exceed the amount awarded. In the case of such a young worker killed on the job, the lost earnings over the remaining work life of Mr. Lara would likely exceed the million dollar mark unless he was a low paid laborer with little future earnings potential.

Lost earnings are typically calculated by expert economists that project the worker's remaining life-long earnings based upon his current age, position, past work history, educational level, industry wages and potential earnings along with other considerations to arrive at the estimate of lost future earnings. These numbers can be enormous in the case of young workers, particularly those in high paying fields such as construction.

The relatively low settlement amount suggests that Mr. Lara's earnings were not on the high end of the construction idustry. In addition, the settlement amount suggests a significant level of comparative fault on the part of Mr. Lara. Finally, there were likely other comparative fault issues that arose as a result of worker compensation limits if Mr. Lara's employer was found even partially at fault for his wrongful death due to strict limits on employer liability under workers compensation statutes.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com