This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 CASEY R. BAKER, 2 Worker-Appellee, 3 v. NOS. 36,142 and 36,272 (consolidated) 4 ENDEAVOR SERVICES, INC., and 5 GREAT WEST CASUALTY CO., 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellants, 7 Consolidated with 8 CASEY R. BAKER, 9 Worker-Appellant, 10

v. 11 ENDEAVOR SERVICES, INC., and 12 GREAT WEST CASUALTY CO., 13 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 14 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 15 Terry S. Kramer, Workers ’ Compensation Judge 16 Gerald A. Hanrahan 17 Albuquerque, NM 181 All citations to Employer’s docketing statement in Ct. App. No. 36,142 are 18 cited to as “ Case #1 DS.” All citations to Worker’s docketing statement in Ct. App. 19 No. 36,272 are cited as “ Case #2 DS.” All citations to the record proper refer to the 20 record proper originally numbered Ct. App. No. 36,272, Case #2. 21 2 for Appellee 1

Kelly A. Genova 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 for Appellants 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION 5 GARCIA, Judge. 6
{1} Employer/Insurer Endeavor Services, Inc. and Great West Casualty Co. 7 (Employer) appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration’s (WCA) 8 compensation order awarding Worker Casey R. Baker (Worker) benefits based on a 9 maximum medical improvement (MMI) date of December 7, 2016. [ Case #1 DS 2; 10 RP 190] 1 Worker appeals from the WCA’s orde r awarding him attorney fees and 11 requiring the award to be paid fifty percent by Worker and fifty percent by Employer. 12 [ Case #2 DS 1; RP 234] This Court issued a notice consolidating the appeals and 13 proposing to affirm. Employer has not filed a memorandum in opposition to our 14 proposed summary affirmance. We therefore affirm the WCA’s compensation order 15 determining the date Worker reached MMI. See Griffin v. Thomas , 1997-NMCA-009, 163 ¶ 7, 122 N.M. 826, 932 P.2d 516 (“[A]n issue is deemed abandoned where a party 1 fails to respond to the calendar notice’s proposed disposition of the issue[.]”). Worker 2 filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining 3 unpersuaded, we affirm the award and apportionment of his attorney fees. 4
{2} Worker asserts the WCA erred in denyi ng his application to require Employer 5 to pay one hundred percent of Worker’s attorney fees pursuant to NMSA 1978, 6 Section 52-1-54(F) (2013), because the comp ensation order awarded Worker a larger 7 recovery for temporary total disability (TTD) than Worker proposed to Employer in 8 his offer of judgment. [ Case # 2 DS 11-12] As we pointed out in our notice, Worker’s 9 offer addressed only TTD bene fits and appeared to have failed to address any 10 contemplated permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, medical benefits, or any 11 other benefits, aside from attorney fees, th at were contested issues and which Worker 12 was ultimately awarded. [MIO 3; RP 162, 193-194] Worker points out in his 13 memorandum in opposition that his offer included payment by Employer for 14 continued medical treatment. [MIO 7] In support of the argument his offer sufficiently 15 addressed the critical issues and was not required to include PPD benefits, Worker 16 cites Abeyta v. Bumper to Bumper Auto Salvage , 2005-NMCA-087, ¶¶ 11, 15, 137 17 N.M. 800, 115 P.3d 816, in which this Court held the worker’s offer of judgment 18 regarding TTD benefits was unambiguous and was lower than the compensation 194 award the worker received. Worker cites Abeytato argue his offer, which only 1 addressed TTD benefits was unambiguous and supports application of the fee-shifting 2 statute. [MIO 6] 3
{3} While it is true the offers both in the present case and in Abeytaappeared to 4 specifically address only TTD benefits, unlike in Abeyta , where PPD benefits did not 5 appear to be at issue, PPD be nefits were a contested issue in the present case and, thus, 6 a critical issue unaddressed by Worker’s offer. [RP 162] See Abeyta , 2005-NMCA7 087, ¶¶ 2-3. Insofar as Worker’s offer of settlement did not address the critical 8 contested issue of PPD by “reserv[ing] all . . . rights not specifically addressed herein, 9 including all rights, claims and defenses relating to [PPD] bene fits following MMI[,]” 10 [MIO 7] we conclude the WCA properl y concluded the offer did not supply an 11 appropriate basis for applicati on of the fee-shifting provision. See Leonard v. Payday 12 Prof’l , 2007-NMCA-128, ¶ 26, 142 N.M. 605, 168 P.3d 177 (observing although an 13 offer of judgment may fail to address details , where critical issues are unresolved, the 14 offer does not supply an appropriate basis for fee shifting). 15
{4} Worker goes on to argue he was prevented from making a timely offer of 16 judgment that included PPD benefits becau se the completion of a second impairment 17 assessment was delayed by Employer’s refusal to pay for it. [MIO 8-9] While the 18 second impairment assessment resulted in a greater impairment rating, [MIO 9] 195 Worker was not prevented from making a comp lete offer of judgment that addressed 1 PPD benefits based on the in formation and impairment rating that was available to 2 him at the time. As a consequence, Wo rker’s argument his incomplete offer of 3 judgment provides a basis for fee-shifting is unavailing. 4
{5} Therefore, based on the reasons statedabove and in this Court’s notice of 5 proposed disposition, we affirm. 6
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________________ ______________ 8 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

_______________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12

_______________________________ 13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14