Legal Opinion
Ortiz v. Overland Express
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided February 26, 2009No. 28,135PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
{1} Worker’s estate appeals from a compensation order awarding no compensation to the estate. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) concluded that Worker’s use of methamphetamine and amphetamine was the sole cause of his death and benefits are therefore barred by NMSA 1978, § 52-1-12 (1989) of the Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA). We hold that, as it relates to amphetamine and methamphetamine, this statutory defense was abolished by the Legislature in 1972. We also reject Employer’s argument that benefits are barred because Worker was acting outside the course of his…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2004
- New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Public Regulation CommissionNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. MaestasNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2006
- Stinbrink v. Farmers Ins. Co. of ArizonaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Walker v. WoldridgeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ortiz v. Overland ExpressNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2010
- Villa v. City of Las CrucesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2010
- Hutchinson v. Liberty Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011
- Ortiz v. Overland ExpressNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2009
- Villa v. City of Las CrucesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2010