Legal Opinion
Quintana v. Trotz Construction Company
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided March 4, 1968No. 8206PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION. MO-ISE, Justice.
We here have presented an appeal and a cross-appeal from a workmen’s compensation judgment granting claimant compensation for 20% impairment to the body as a whole.
Claimant complains that the judgment was for less than 100% disability, whereas the employer claims error because recovery was not limited to 115 weeks, being the period for which compensation is provided by the schedule for injury to one foot at the ankle. § 59-10-18.4, N.M.S.A.1953.
There is no question that claimant’s left foot and ankle were injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reynolds v. Ruidoso Racing Association, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
- Lozano v. ArcherNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
- Blancett v. Homestake-Sapin PartnersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963
- Rhodes v. Cottle Construction CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1960
- Baker v. Shufflebarger & Associates, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Sanchez v. Homestake Mining Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
- Adams v. Loffland Brothers Drilling CompanyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1970
- Medina v. Zia CompanyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- Marez v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
- American Tank & Steel Corp. v. ThompsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.