Legal Opinion
Wegner v. Hair Products
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided March 2, 2005No. 24,627PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CASTILLO, Judge.
{1} In this case, we must determine if the provisions of the New Mexico statute creating an uninsured employers’ fund (statute) apply prospectively or retroactively to the claims of Appellants Wegner and Mosqueda. We hold that the terms of the statute apply prospectively, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
{2} Wegner was injured on February 9, 1998. She timely filed her claim against her employer and was awarded compensation by orders entered in 1999 and 2001. Wegner’s employer was uninsured at the time of the injury, and no benefits have been paid. On July 18, 2003, Wegner…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- State v. RiveraNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
- Gallegos v. Pueblo of TesuqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
- Swink v. FingadoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993
- City of Albuquerque v. State Ex Rel. Village of Los Ranchos De AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Andrew v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2011
- Rodriguez v. Brand West DairyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2016
- Town of Silver City v. ScartacciniNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
- Safeway, Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing & Drain SSSNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2012
- Cable One, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep'tNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.