Legal Opinion
Hernandez v. Levi Strauss, Inc.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided August 25, 1988No. 10311PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DONNELLY, Chief Judge.
This interlocutory appeal presents the issue of when an employer is time-barred from asserting its claim for reimbursement against the Subsequent Injury Fund (Fund). The Fund appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment against the employer, Levi Strauss, Inc., based on the statute of limitations. We affirm.
In April 1982, the plaintiff, Pilar Hernandez, suffered an accidental injury while on the job. Thereafter, on October 17, 1983, plaintiff sustained a subsequent job-related accidental injury. Plaintiff filed a workmen’s compensation action against…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Vaughn v. United Nuclear Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- Noland v. Young Drilling CompanyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1968
- ABF Freight System v. MontanoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
- Nasci v. Frank Paxton Lumber Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
- Pena v. New Mexico Highway DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- City of Roswell v. ChavezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1989
- Aragon v. Furr's, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
- Davis v. Los Alamos National LaboratoryNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1989
- Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. Subsequent Injury FundNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1990
- Gambrel v. Marriott HotelNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.