Legal Opinion
Jaramillo v. Anaconda Co.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided February 24, 1981No. 4641PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALTERS, Judge.
Defendant appeals the trial court’s allowance of increased compensation benefits based on its finding that defendant failed to supply safety devices required by § 52-1-10, N.M.S.A.1978, of our Workmen’s Compensation Act. Also challenged as excessive is the $3,750 attorneys fee awarded by the court. We reverse on both issues.
While walking on a travel-way at defendant’s mine, plaintiff fell through a manhole because an insecure cover shifted when he stepped on it. The trial court granted an additional 10% in compensation payments to plaintiff for the injuries he suffered,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
- Casias v. Zia Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- Hicks v. ARTESIA ALFALFA GROWERS'ASSOCIATIONNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
- Icke Construction Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
3Cited by5 opinions
- Benavides v. E. N.M. Med. Ctr.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2014
- Boughton v. Western Nuclear, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1983
- Benavides v. Eastern New Mexico Medical CenterNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2014
- Benavides v. Eastern N.M. Med. Ctr.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2014
- Benavides v. Eastern NM Med CenterNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2013