Legal Opinion
Jurado v. Levi Strauss & Co.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided October 12, 1995No. 15936PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WECHSLER, Judge.
1. This case arises out of a claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 52-1-1 to -70 (Repl. Pamp.1991) (effective January 1, 1991) (the Act). The principal issue is the admissibility of the written impairment report of Dr. Guy R. Fogel, who neither treated Worker nor provided an independent medical examination (IME). See §§ 52-1-49, -51(C). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) denial of Employer’s motion in limine with regard to Dr. Fogel’s report and remand this case to the WCJ for new findings…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hise Construction v. CandelariaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
- Cisneros v. Molycorp, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1988
- City of Albuquerque v. SanchezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1992
- Gomez v. Bernalillo County Clerk's OfficeNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- Taylor v. AllegrettoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Grine v. Peabody Natural ResourcesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2006
- Baca v. Complete Drywall Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001
- Torres v. Plastech Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
- Gutierrez v. J & B MOBILE HOMESNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
- Banks v. IMC Kalium Carlsbad Potash Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.