Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Marez v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided December 19, 1978No. 3487Published

1ConcurrenceSutin, Judge

(specially concurring).

I specially concur.

The purpose of this concurrence is to set the guidelines for proving total or partial disability of a workman. Seldom does a workmen’s compensation case appealed to this Court reflect a clear establishment of these results.

Section 52-1-24, N.M.S.A. 1978 reads:

As used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, “total disability” means a condition whereby a workman, by reason of an injury arising out of, and in the course of, his employment, is wholly unable to perform the usual tasks in the work he was performing at the time of his injury, and is wholly unable…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. E. R. Moore Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  4. Getz v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of USNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Rachal v. Highlands Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1978

16 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