Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Escobedo v. Agriculture Products Co., Inc.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided June 26, 1974No. 1344Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge

I dissent on the issue of “refusal of medical services,” and concur on the remainder of the opinion.

A. The trial court had a duty to make additional findings on refusal to allow a review.

Section 59-10-20, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1) provides in part:

If any workman . . . shall refuse to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is reasonably essential to promote his recovery, the court may in its discretion reduce or suspend his compensation.

Before the court can exercise its discretion, it must find that the workman’s refusal was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court must also…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Harris v. State Corporation CommissionNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Rhodes v. Cottle Construction CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Sultan & Chera Corp. v. FallasSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
  4. Bostic v. DREHERSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  5. Dudley v. Ferguson Trucking CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1956

6 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