Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Beckwith v. Cactus Drilling Corporation

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided November 30, 1972No. 930Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge

I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur in affirmance of awards of compensation, and dissent on the denial of certain medical expense to Beckwith.

A. Cactus and Liberty Mutual(1) Sufficiency of Statutory Notice

Cactus and Liberty Mutual claim that compensation is barred because of insufficiency of notice under § 59-10-13.4, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1). They admit receipt of written notice that plaintiff sustained compensable injury to his left leg, but contend that they had no notice within the statutory period of an injury to his low back, not connected in any way to the leg…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Certain Taxpayers v. SheahenIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Bettini v. City of Las CrucesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1971
  3. State Ex Rel. Barela v. New Mexico State Board of EducationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Geeslin v. Goodno, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Waymire v. Signal Oil Field Service, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1966

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API