1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: JA N U A R Y 14, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 446 5 FRANK C. DI LUZ IO , 6 W orke r- Appe lle e/ Cr oss -Appe llant, 7 v

. 8 CITYOF SA NTAFE , self -insure d, 9 Em

ploy er-Appellant/Cross -Appellee. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T H E WORKER S’ C OMP ENS ATION AD MIN ISTR ATION 11 Te rr y S . Kr am er , Wo rker s’ C om pe ns at ion Ju dg e 12 Ge rald A . H anrahan 13 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 14 fo r Appe lle e/ Cr oss -Appe llant 15 French & Associates 16 Ka therine E. Tourek 17 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 18 for Appellant/Cross -Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 FR Y, Judge. 3 { 1} This case is on appeal from a w orkers’ com

pensation ju d g e’s (W CJ) order 4 granting W orker, a form er C ity of Santa Fe firefighter, total disabi lity benefits under 5 the New

Mexico Oc cupat i o n al Di s ea s e D i s ab l emen tLa w ( Oc cu p at ional Disease A ct), 6 N MS A 197 8, §§ 5 2- 3- 1 to - 60 ( 1945 , a s a m en de d th roug h 20 13 ), f oll ow ing his 7 diagno sis with m antle cell n on-Hodgkin ’ s lym phom a. O n appeal, E m

ploy er argues 8 that application of Sec tion 5 2-3-32.1, w hich crea t es a rebuttable presum ption that 9 ce rt ai n di se as es w er e pr oxi m at el y c au se d by

f ir ef igh tin g, to the se fa ct s c onst itu te s a 10 retroac tive application of t he statute. Em ploy er further argues th at the O ccupational 11 D ise as e A ct sti ll re qui re s fir ef igh te rs to est ab lis h wi th m ed ic al pr oba bil ity tha t the ir 12 disease wa s caused by firef ighti ng and th at W orker fa iled to do so. Finally , E m ploy er 13 argues that it shou ld be allowed to rebut the causation presum ption with evidence that 14 non- H odgk in’ s ly

m phom a is n ot c au se d by f ir ef igh tin g. W orke r cr oss -a ppe al s 15 ar gui ng tha t the W CJe rr ed in ca lc ula tin g th e rate of dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts h e is o w ed

. 16 { 2} Inr eg ar d to E m plo y er ’ s arg um en ts, w e co nc lud e tha t be ca use W orke r m et

the 17 sta tut or

y pr er equis ite s to be e nti tle d to the pr es um pti on tha t his dise as e w as the r es ult 18 of his y ears of

se rv ic e as a fi re fi ght er , he w as not r equir ed to es ta bli sh tha t hi s di se as e 19 w as c au sa lly

c onne ct ed

to his e m

plo ym en t. Fur

the r, be ca

use E m plo y er did not2

1 pr es en t ev ide nc e tha t W orke r’ s dis ea se w as the r es ult of c ondu ct or a ct ivi tie s ou tsi de 2 hi s e mp l oym en t, we co nc lu de th atEm pl oyer fai le d t o re bu t t hi s p res um pt io n. See 3 § 52 -3 -3 2. 1( C)

. F ina lly , w e co nc lud e tha t appl ic at ion of S ec tio n 52 -3 -3 2. 1 to the se 4 fact s d oe s n ot co ns ti tu te a ret ro act iv e ap p l i c a t i o n o f th e st atut e. Acco rd in gl y , we 5 affir m the W CJ on these bases. In regard to W orker’ s cross-appeal, we conclude that 6 the W CJe rr ed

in ca lc ula tin g th e co m

pe nsa tio n a m ount

due W orke r by fa ili ng t o take 7 int o a cc ount

the da te tha t W orke r be cam e dis ab le d. Ac co rding ly , w e re ve rs e an d 8 rem an d o n t hi s p oi nt

. 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 3} W orke r be ga n w orkin g a s af ir ef igh te r/ pa ram ed ic f

or the City of S an taF e in 11 1979

. He rem ained with t he fire departm ent until 2000

. During his twenty -one-y ear 12 ca re er with the fir e departm ent, W orker served in a var iety of roles, includin g shift 13 com m ander, captain of em ergency services, divis ion chief

, deputy fire chief, and fire 14 ch ie f. W orke r te sti fi ed tha t a t a ll tim es dur ing his care er w ith the f ir e de pa rtm en t, he 15 ac tiv el y

f ough t or a tte nde d f

ir es appr oxi m at el y

tw o ti m es pe r w ee k. 16 { 4} Fo llo w ing his c ar ee r as af ir ef igh te r, W orke r br ie fl y se rv ed as the S an taF e Ci ty 17 Mana ge r. A ft er

le av ing em

plo ym en t w iththe Ci ty

of S an taF e, W orke r w orke d in 18 oth er oc cu pa tio ns b ef

or e bec om ing em

plo y ed w ith the N ew Me xic o C hil dr en , Y outh 19 an d F am ili es D ep ar

tm en t ( CY FD ). W orke r w as w orkin g a s asup er vis or f or the3

1 em plo y ee r el at ion s bure aua t C Y FD in January 20 12 w he n he w as dia gnos ed w ith 2 m an tle c el l no n- H odgk in’ s ly m phom a. D ue to his il lne ss, W orke r ac ce pte d a 3 de m oti on i n Nov em

be r 2012 f

ro m sup er vis or to em plo y ee r el at ion s sp ec ia lis t and 4 be ga n w orkin g in cr ea sin gly r ed uc ed ho ur s. W orke r subs eque ntl y r es ign ed f ro m 5 em plo ym en t w ithCY FD in June 201 3 du e to h is i nabil ity to co nti nue w orkin g. 6 { 5} W orker tim ely

filed his com

pla int for benefits in Jun e 2012. T he W CJ 7 dete rm i ne d t ha t W or

ke r w a s e nt i t l e d t o a pr e su m pt i on t ha t hi s di se ase w as 8 pr oxi m at el y ca

use d by his y ears of se rv ic e as a fi re fi ght er be ca use , und er

S ec tio n 52

- 9 3-32.1, non-Hodg k in’ s lym phom a is an identified disease and W orker served m ore 10 th an fif

te en y ears as a fir efi gh te r. See § 52-3-32.1(B)(5). T he W CJ determ ined that 11 W orke r be cam e phy sic al ly una ble to w ork inJanuary

201 2. A m ong oth er

r el ie f, the 12 W CJa w ar de d W orke r $480

. 47 p er w ee k intot al dis ab ili ty

bene fi ts f

or am ax im um 13 of 700 weeks. Em

ploy er now appeals the W CJ’ s determ i n at ion th at W orker w as 14 en tit le d to th e pr es um pti on tha t hi s se rv ic e as af ir ef igh te r pr oxi m at el y

c au se d hi s 15 di se as e an d Work er cr os s- ap pe al s t he ba si s o f th e WCJ’s award of b en efi ts

. 16 DISC US SION 17 Stand ard of R eview 18 { 6} W e be ginw ithE m plo y er ’ s arg um en ts r eg ar din g th e W CJ ’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the 19 fi re fi ght er

oc cu pa tio na l di se as e st at ut e be fo re c onsi de ri ng W orke r’ s arg um en t4

1 re ga rd ing the c al cu la tio n of dis ab ili ty

be nefits

. B othpart ie s’ a rg um en ts r equir e us 2 to i nte rp re t the pr ovi sio ns o f the O cc upa tio na l D ise as e A ct

. S ta tut or y int er pr et at ion 3 is a qu es ti on of la w th atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Cooper v. Chev ron U.S. A. , I nc. , 200 2- 4 N MS C- 020, ¶

16, 132 N

. M. 382 , 49 P

. 3d 6 1. 5 { 7} “ Inint er

pr et ing statut es , w e se ek to giv e ef fe ct to the L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt, a nd 6 in determ ining intent we look to the language used and consider the statute’ s histo ry 7 and backgroun d.” Ke

y v. Ch ry sle r M oto rs C orp. , 1996 -N MSC- 038, ¶ 13, 121 N. M. 8 764, 918 P

. 2d 3 50. G en er al pr inc ipl es gui de our c onstru ct ionof

statut es . F ir st, the 9 “ plain langu age o f [the] statute is the prim ary indicator of legislativ e intent.” H igh 10 R idg e H

ink le Jo int V en tur e v. Ci ty of A lbu que rque , 1998 -N MSC- 050, ¶ 5, 126 N. M. 11 413, 970 P. 2d 599 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). S ec ond, w e w ill 12 not read into the statu te language that is no t there, particularly i f it m akes sense as 13 writ te n. Id

. A nd f ina lly , if “ se ve ra l se ct ion s of a sta tut e ar e inv olv ed , the y m ust be 14 read to ge th er s o t ha t al l p art s ar e g iv en effe ct .” I d. 15 T h e Fi refi gh ter O ccup at io na l Di se as e Sta tute Ex empts Fir efi gh ters in So me 16 Circ um stances F rom Having t o Establish ThatFir efightin g Was the P roxim ate 17 C au se of

Th ei r D ise ase 18 { 8} The O ccupational Disease A ct requires a worker to show a “ d i rect c ausal 19 co nn ect ion be tw ee n th e co ndi tio ns unde r w hic h th e w ork is pe rf orm ed a nd the 20 occupational di sease” in or d er to re cover benefits. Sec tion 5 2-3-32. Where an5

1 em plo y er de nie s th at

the “ oc cu pa tio na l di se as e is the m at er ia l and d ir ec t r es ult of the 2 conditi ons un der w hich work was p erfor m ed, the worker m

ust establish that causal 3 connection as a m edical probabilityby m edical expert testim ony .” Id

. 4 { 9} T he f

irefi gh te r oc cu

pa tio na l di se as e sta tut e, on the oth er hand, e xe m

pts 5 fi re fi ght er s inc er

ta in s itu at ion s f

ro m the bur de n of est ab lis hin g a cau sa l c onne ct ion 6 be tw ee n th ei r dis ea se a nd the ir dut ie s a s f

ir ef igh te rs . Sec tio n 52-3 -3 2. 1. T he statut e 7 states, “ If a

firef ighter is diagn osed with one or m ore of the f ollowing d iseases after 8 the pe rio d of e m

plo ym en t i ndi ca te d,

. . . the dis ea se is pr es um ed to be pr oxi m at el y 9 caused by

em ploy m ent as a fir efighte r[ .]” Se ct ion 52 -3-32.1(B)

. In the case of a 10 fi refi gh te r de ve lop ing non -H odgk in’ s ly m phom a, the dis ea se is pr es um ed to be 11 proxim ately

caused by

the firef ighter’ s occupat i o n af

t er fifteen y ears of service. 12 Section 52-3-32.1(B)( 5). 13 { 10} E m

plo y er a rg ue s th at , notw ith standi ng the firef igh te r oc cu

pa tio na l di se as e 14 statute, the O ccupational Disease A ct still requires a fir efighter to p ro ve m edical 15 ca usa tio n. T hus, E m

pl oyer arg ue s th at

be ca use W orke r did

not e sta bli sh w itha 16 re as ona

ble de gr ee of m ed ic al pr oba bil ity tha t his dise as e w as c au se d by his y ears of 17 fi re fi ght ing , he sho uld be barr ed

f ro m r ec ei vin g di sa

bil ity be ne fi ts. 18 { 11} Em

ploy er’ s argum ent m isses the m ark. As noted above, the Oc cu p at ional 19 D ise as e A ct

pla ce s abur de n on w orke rs to pro ve tha t the ir dis ea se w as pr oxi m at el y6

1 caused by

the h az ar d s of their em

ploy m ent. S ection 52-3-32. The statute requires 2 w orke rs to pr ove the c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th ei r oc cu pa tion and d ise as e “ as a 3 m edical probabilityby m edical expert testim ony .” Id

. H ow ev er , whe n the 4 Le gislature enacted 52-3-32.1 and stated that certain diseases suffer ed by firef ighters 5 w oul d be “ pr es um ed

to be pr oxi m at el y

c au se d by

e m plo ym en t as a fir ef

igh te r, ” it 6 m ad e cl ear tha t i n so m e ci rc um stanc es af ir ef igh te r w oul d be e xe m

pte d f ro m the 7 re qui re m en t of

e st ab li shi ng the c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n c er ta in d ise as es a nd the 8 ha zard s of

f ir ef igh tin g, a lth oughtha t pr es um pti on is r eb utt ab le

. S ec tio n 52 -3

- 9 32.1(B). T hus, Section 5 2-3-32.1 essentially reverse s the usual bu rden of proof under 10 the O cc upa tio na l Di se as e A ct f or anarr owc la ss o f w orke rs f or pub lic pol ic y

r ea sons . 11 { 12} T he se pub lic pol ic y r ea sons c en te r ar ound

the le gi sl at ive r ec ogni tio n of the 12 difficulty

a fir efighter w ould have, given th e various hazards and toxins firef ighters 13 ar e ex pose d to , of

e sta bli shi ng the c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n f ir ef igh tin g and h is o r 14 he r di se as e. City of Littlet o n v. In dustr ial Claim Appeals Office , 201 2 C O A 187 , 1 5 ¶ 37, P

. 3 d , 2 0 1 2 W L 5 3 6 0 9 1 2 ( s t a t i n g t h a t a f i r e f i g h t e r i s d i s a d v a n ta ge d in 16 proving causation because “ [t] here is no way to kno w w hich sub stances the f i r e f ighter 17 en co unt er ed

a t w hic h f

ir e; a nd e ve n if

the re w er e, the re is no way to de te rm ine the 18 dose , f

re que nc y , a nd d

ur at ionof e xpos ur es ”)

. A s th e W CJf ound : 19 Inthe c our se of f igh tin g f ir es , f ir ef igh te rs m ay be ex pose d to harm fu l 20 subs tanc es . A t the f ir e sc en e, f

ir ef igh ters are po te nti al ly

e xpos ed to7

1 va ri ous m ixt

ur e s o f pa rt ic ula te s, ga se s, m ist s, f um es of a n or ga nic a nd/ or 2 ino rg an ic na tur e[ , ] a nd the r es ult an t py ro ly sis pr oduc ts. 3 A f ir ef igh te r at te m

pti ng t o c au sa lly co nne ct the num be r an d de gr ee of

e xpos ur es to 4 the se vari ous tox ins ove r the c our se of his or he r care er

to a spe ci fi c dis ea se w oul d 5 t h e r e f o r e b e p res en te d wi th a fo rm id ab le ba rri er t o re co ve ry . W an st ro m v. N.D. 6 W ork er s C om p. B ure au , 200 1 ND 21, ¶ 7, 621 N. W .2d 864, 867 (stating that a sim ilar 7 sta tut e’ s “ pur

pose is to re lie ve fi re fi ght er s of the ne ar ly im poss ibl e bur de n of

pr ovi ng 8 firef ighti ng actually

caused their disease”)

. 9 { 13} E

sta te of G eo rge v. V

erm ont Le ague of Ci ties and T ow ns , is ins tr

uc tiv e on this 10 po in t. 2010 V T 1, 187 V t. 229 , 993 A

. 2d 3 67. I n E sta te of G eo rge , the e state of a 11 fi re fi ght er

w ho d ie d of

non -H odgk in’ s ly

m phom a br ough t a w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 12 act io n. Id

. ¶ 3. W ith out

the be ne fi t of

astatut or y pr es um pti on s im ilar to S ec tio n 52

- 13 3- 32. 1, the f

ir ef igh te r’ s c la im

in Estate of Ge orge fa ile d be ca use “ [t ] he re w as . . . no 14 ev ide nc e as to the f

re que nc y of e xpos ur e or

ty pe s of e xpos ur es tha t [ the ] c la im an t 15 m ay ha ve ha d. ” 2010 V T 1, ¶ 3, 187 V t. 229, 993 A

. 2d 367. I t i s th is ty pe of r es ult , 16 w hich would li ke ly

r ep ea t i tse lf

in ne ar ly

e ve ry O cc upa tio na l D ise as e A ct c as e 17 br ough t by

af ir ef igh te r, tha t like ly le d the L eg isl at ur e to re ve rs e the bur de n of pr oof 18 fo r ca usa tio n inf

av or of f ir ef igh te rs . 19 { 14} Fo r the se r ea sons , E m plo y er ’ s r el ianc e on s ta te m en ts i n Cast i l lo v. C apro ck 20 Pipe & Supp ly, Inc. , ind ic at ing tha t the dis ea se “ m ust be one due w hol ly

to ca use s and8

1 co ndi tio ns w hic h are nor m al a nd c onst an tly

prese nt and

c ha ra ct er ist ic of

the 2 pa rti cu la r oc cu

pa tio n” is ina

ppos ite to our

c onc lus ion

. 201 2- N MC A -0 85, ¶ 5, 285 3 P. 3d 1 072 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). T he se st at em en ts i n 4 Ca sti llo int er

pr et the pr oxi m at e ca

usa tio n r equir em en t e m

bodi ed in S ec tio n 52 -3 -3 2. 5 Se e Ca sti llo , 201 2- N MC A -0 85, ¶ 4. By en ac tin g the fi re fi ght er oc cu pa tio na l di se as e 6 sta tut e, the L eg isl at

ur e ad opt ed a sta tut or

y pr es um pti on tha t the de ve lop m en t of non 7 Hodgkin’s ly m

phom a b y a firefighter i s linked to his or h er service i n that role under 8 ce rt ai n c ir cu m stanc es . E m plo y er ’ s r el ianc e on Ca still o and argum ent that W orker 9 fa ile d to sho w tha t his dise as e “ w as pa rt ic ular to fi re fi ght ing ” fa ils to ac co unt f or thi s 10 st atut or y

pre su m pt io n. 11 { 15} Finally , our c onclusi on is bu ttressed by the inclusio n of a provisi on stating that 12 w he n on e of

the pr es um

pt ion s do es not

appl y , af

ir ef igh te r is n ot p re cl ude d f

ro m 13 “ de m on st rat in g a cau sa l co nn ect io n b et ween em plo y m ent a nd [ the ] dis eas e o r in

jury.” 14 Se ct ion 52- 3- 32. 1( E ). T his pr ovi sio n w oul d be re dund an t if a fi re fi ghter was sti ll 15 re qui re d to pr ove ac au sa l co nne ct ion ev en w he re one of the pr es um

pti ons ap pli ed

. 16 T hus, w e co nc lud e tha t wh en a fi re fi ght er es ta bli she s that he or she is s uf fe ri ng f ro m 17 one or m ore of the diseases listed in Section 52-3-32.1(B) and t h at t h e f irefighter 18 se rv ed

the r equis ite num

be r of y ears , subj ec t to an y oth er r equir em en ts unde r Se ct ion9

1 52-3-32.1(B), the firef

ighter is entitled to the presum ption —albeit rebuttable—that 2 the disease wa s caused by his or her em

ploy m ent as a fir efighter. 3 Em pl oye r F ail ed t o R e b u tt h e P r e s u m p t i o n T h a tW o r ke r ’s D ise ase Wa s C au sal ly 4 Conn ecte d to F irefight ing 5 { 16} Se ct ion52- 3- 32. 1( C) state s th at “ [t ] he pr es um

pti ons cr ea te d inS ubse ct ion [s ] 6 B and D of

thi s se ct ionm ay

be r eb utt ed

by apr ep onde ranc e of

e vid en ce . . . sho w ing 7 that the firef

ighter engaged in conduct or activ ities outsi de of em ploy m ent that posed 8 a sig nif ic an t r isk of c ontra ct ing or

de ve lop ing a de sc ri be d dis ea se . ” W e unde rs tand 9 E m plo y er ’ s arg um en t t o be tha t i t sh oul d be a llo w ed to re but the pr es um

pti on w ith 10 ev ide nc e show ing a te nuou s li nk b etw ee n f ir ef igh tin g and the de ve lop m en t of non 11 Hodgkin’s lym

phom a. 12 { 17} Em

ploy er’ s argum en t , h o wever, attacks the statutory presum ption itself that 1 3 o c c up a t i o n a l h a z a r d s r e l a t i n g t o f i r e f i g h t i n g c a n c au s e n o n - H o d g k i n ’s l ymp h o ma 1 4 i n s t ea do f r eb u t t i n g t h e p re s u m p t i o n wi th ev i d en ce t h at Wor k er ’s n o n -H o d g k i n ’s 15 lym phom a w as caused by

“ conduct or activities outsi de of em ploy m ent [by

W orker] 16 that p o s ed a s i gnificant risk of contracting or develop ing [the] disease.” Id

. ; see 17 Medlin v. Cnty. of Henrico P olice , 542 S

. E

. 2d 3 3, 39 ( V a. Ct

. App. 20 01 ) (h old ing 18 in r egard to a sim ilar sta tut e tha t “ ev ide nc e tha t m er el y r eb uts ge ne ra lly

the 19 unde rl y ing pr em ise of the statut e, w hic h e sta

bli she s a cau sa l link be tw ee n stre ss and 20 he ar t di se as e, is not

pr oba ti ve ev ide nc e fo r pur pose s of ove rc om ing the10

1 pr es um ption ”). Be ca

use the statut or

y pr es um pti on r ep re se nts ale gis la tiv e 2 de te rm ina tio n th at

the re is a ca

usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n f ir ef igh tin g and the 3 de ve lop m en t of

non -H od gki n’ s ly

m phom a, no am ount

of e vid en ce r eg ar din g a 4 poss ibl y

te nuou s l i n k

b e tw e e nn o n - H o d g k i n ’ s l ym phom a an d f

ir ef igh tin g is pr oba tiv e 5 to r e b u tt h e p r e s u m

p t i o n . S u c h ad e t e rm i n a t i o n m u s tc o m e f

r o m l e g i s la tiv e 6 am en dm en t, not

j udi ci al f ia t. I n th is case , E m

plo y er did not put f orth e vid en ce of 7 oth er a ct ivi tie s or c ondu ct

by W orke r out sid e of

his e m plo ym en t tha t po se d a 8 signi ficant risk of him contracting this d iseas e. Accordingl y , w e conclude that 9 E m plo y er fa ile d to r eb ut the pr es um pti on tha t W orke r’ s di se as e w as c au sa lly 10 connected to his y ears of service as a firef ighter. 11 A pp lyi ng t he P re su m pt ion t o T hi s C ase D oe s No t C on st it ut e a R et ro ac ti ve 12 Ap plication of th e St atute 13 { 18} Section 52-3-32.1(A) defines a “ firef ighter” as “ a person who i s em ploy ed as 14 a fu ll- tim e non- vol unt ee r fi re fi ght er by the state or

aloc al gov er

nm en t e nti ty

a nd w ho 15 ha s take n th e oa th pr es cr ibe d fo r fi re fi ght er s. ” T his statut e be cam e ef fe ct ive in 2010

. 16 W orke r, a lth ou gh no lo nge r w orkin g w iththe f ir e de pa rtm en t, be cam e dis ab le d in 17 2012 and shortlythereaf ter filed his claim for disabilitybenefits. Em ploy er argues 18 that because W orker w as not working as a firef ighter at the tim e the fire fighter 19 oc cu pa tio na l di se as e sta tut e w as e na ct ed , his us e of the statut e co nst itu te s a11

1 re tr oa ct ive appl ic at ionof the statut or

y pr es um pti on. T hus, E m

plo y er a rg ue s th at

the 2 sta tut e ap pli es onl y

to fi re fi ght er s e m

plo y ed a t the tim e the statut e w en t i nto e ff ec t. 3 { 19} W e dis ag re e w ithE m plo y er tha t a ppl ic atio n of th e pr es um pti on i n th is c as e 4 co nst itu te s ar e t r o a c t i v e ap p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a tu t e . “ I ti s w e l l s e t t l e dt h a tas t a tut e 5 doe s no t op er at e re tr oa ct ive ly m er el y be ca us e som e of

the f ac ts o r co ndi tio ns u

pon 6 which its application depends c am e into existence prior to the enactm ent.” H ansm an 7 v. B ernal ill o C

nty

. A ssesso r , 198 0- N MC A -0 88, ¶ 20, 95 N

. M. 697 , 625 P

. 2d 1 214 8 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). T he fa ct tha t W orke r’ s e m plo ym en t 9 w ith the fi re de pa rtm en t oc curr ed be fo re the en ac tm en t of Se ct ion 52- 3- 32.1 is not 10 de te rm in at iv e o f whe th er Work er i s en ti tl edto th e st atut or y pre su m pt io n. 11 { 20} W e the re fo re dis ag re e w ithE m plo y er ’ s arg um en t tha t the L eg isl at ur e’ s us e of 12 the w or d “ is” in the de fi nit ionof “ fi re fi ght er ” ev ide nc es an in te ntion b y the 13 L eg isl at

ur e to lim it the pr es um

pti on to tho se fi re fi ght er s w orkin g a s f ir ef igh te rs a t the 1 4 tim e o f t h e s t a tu t e ’ s e n a c t m e n t

. T h e o p e r a t i v e c o n t e x t o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n is to 15 dis tin gu is h be tw ee n f ir ef igh te rs e m

plo y ed by astate or

loc al gov er

nm en t and 16 volu nteer fir efighters, not to lim it the statuto ry presum ption to firefighters em

ploy ed 17 at the ti m e of

it s e na ctm en t. S ec tio n 52-3 -3 2. 1( A ). F urthe rm or e, the pe ri ods of 1 8 emp l o ym en tn ec es s ar y t o b e e n t i t l ed t o t h e p re s u m p t i o n i n d i ca t e t h e L eg i s l at u re ’s 19 aw ar en es s of

the sig nif

ic an t lat en cy pe ri od betw ee n expo sur e to h ar m fu l t oxi ns and12

1 the de ve lop m en t of the dis ea se s li ste d. S ec tio n 52 -3 -3 2. 1( B) ( re qui ri ng b etw ee n f ive 2 to f if te eny ears of

e m plo ym en t, de pe ndi ng o n th e dis ea se c ontra ct ed ). Co nstru ing the 3 sta tut e as E m

plo y er ar gue s w oul d m ean, in som e ci rc um stanc es , asim ilar sig nif ic an t 4 delay betwee n the statute’ s enactm ent and the “ first wave,” so to sp eak, of fire fighters 5 being able t o utilize the presum ption

. This l eads us to conclud e that the L egislature 6 intended t h at firefighters who becam e disabled due to o ne of the occupational 7 diseases listed were entitled to th e presum ption —subject, of course, to the other 8 sta tut or

y r equir em en ts —eve n if

the ir te rm s of e m plo ym en t c onc lud ed

be fo re the 9 st atut e’s en act m en t. 10 { 21} T his c onc lus ionis supp orte d by the pol ic y unde rl y ing our pr es um pti on a ga ins t 11 retroac tive appli ca t i o n of statutes. “ The pre sum ption is prem ised upo n poli cy 12 co nsi de ratio ns tha t i ndi vid ua ls, in planni ng and c ondu ct ing the ir bus ine ss, sho uld

be 13 able to rely

with re asonable certainty on existin g laws. ” Ci tyof A lbu que rque v . Sta te 14 ex re l. V

ill

. of Los R anc hos de A lbu que rque , 1991 -N MC A -0 15, ¶ 37, 111 N

. M. 608 , 15 808 P. 2d 5 8. T his statut e did not a ff ec t the un de rl y ing e m

plo ym en t r el at ion shi p 16 be tw ee n th e fi re fi ght er a nd his or he r em

plo y er . I t on ly

a ff ec ts the bur de ns o f pr oof 17 be tw ee n th e re spe ct ive part ie s sh oul d af ir efi gh te r file f

or dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts. A s a 18 re sul t, be ca

use W orke r fi le d fo r be ne fi ts tw o y ears a ft er the statut e’ s e na ctm en t, thu s 19 im pli ca tin g th e sta tut e, E m

plo y er w as a w ar e at th e out se t of thi s li tig at ionw ha t i ts13

1 respective burden wa s. T hat is, it knew thro u g h o u t the course of the litigation that 2 W orke r co uld

be e nti tle d to the statut or y pr es um pti on tha t his dis ea se w as c au se d by 3 his work as a f

irefighter but that it could produce evidence that W orker’ s disease wa s 4 cau se d b y

co nd uc t o r act iv it ie s o ut si de hi s e mplo ym en t. See § 52-3-32.1(B), (C)

. 5 Thus, the r elevant inqui ry f o r d et erm ining whether

the statute was being applied 6 re tr oa ct ive ly

or pr ospe ct ive ly

is not w he the r the f

ir ef igh te r w as e m

plo y ed a s a 7 fi re fi ght er

a t the ti m e of the sta tut e’ s ena ctm en t but ra the r w he the r the statut e w as in 8 existence at the tim e the firef ighter filed for disabili ty benefits. Beca use W orker filed 9 fo r dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts tw o y ears after the statut e’ s e na ctm en t, appl ic at ionof the 10 statute was not retroac tive. 11 The WC J Misapplied S ection 52-3-14 in C alculating the Am ount D ue Work er 12 { 22} W orke r ar gue s th at the W CJe rr on eo usl y c al cu la te d th e am ount of 13 com pensation he shouldbe aw arded. W e agre e. 14 { 23} Se ct ion52- 3- 14( B) state s th at “ [f ] or tot al dis ab le m en t, the e m plo y ee sha ll 15 rece ive sixty -six and two-thirds percent of his average we ekly wa ge, not to ex ceed 16 . . . a m ax i mu m o f on e h un dr edpe rcen t o f th e av erag e week ly w ag e in th e st at e, a 17 w ee k .

. . dur ing the pe ri od o f suc h di sa bl em en t.” Co m

pe nsa tio n “pa id o r pa y ab le 18 dur ing [ an ] e m

plo y ee ’ s e nti re pe ri od of disa ble m en t shal l be bas ed on and li m ite d to 19 the benefits in effec t on the date of the occurrence of t he disablem ent.” Id

. The W CJ14

1 sta te d, how ev er , tha t “ [p ] ur suant t o Se ct ion 52- 3- 14 wa ge s util iz ed f or de te rm ini ng 2 dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts are to be ba se d up on the da te of the oc curr en ce ” ins te ad

of the 3 “ da te of

the oc curr en ce of

the dis ab le m en t. ” T he W CJf ound that W orke r’ s “ la st 4 oc curr en ce a s af

ir ef igh te r w as in 2000 ” an d th erefor e use d th e m ax im um w ee kly 5 co m pe nsa tio n r at e fo r 2000 of $48 0. 47. 6 { 24} T he W CJ ’ s c al cu la tio n wa s in co rr ec t gi ve n th e langua ge om itt ed f ro m the 7 sta tut e in the W CJ ’ s or de r. T he W CJde te rm ine d th at W orke r be cam e dis ab le d in 8 Jan u ar y 2 0 1 2

. Ther efore, this sh ould have also been the date that the W CJ 9 de te rm ine d wa s th e “ da te of the oc curr en ce of

the dis ab le m en t. ” N ow he re doe s th e 10 sta tut e sta te tha t the da te of la st em plo ym en t or dat e of

la st i nj ur iou s e xpos ur e to the 1 1 h az ar d s o f t h e e mp l o yme n t i s t o b e u s ed i n ca l cu l at i n g t h e a m o u n to f t h e Wo rk er ’s 12 di sa bi li ty ben efi ts

. Compare § 52 -3 -1 4( B) ( sta tin g th at co m pe nsa tio n “pa id o r 1 3 pa y ab l e du r i n g [ a n ] e m p l o y e e ’ s e n t i r e p e r i o do f

d i s ab l e m e n ts h a l l b e b a s e do n a nd 14 lim ited to the benefits in effect on t h e d at e of the occurr ence of the disablem ent”), 15 wi th § 52 -3 -1 1 ( “ Whe re c om pe nsa tio n is pay ab le f

or a n oc cu pa tio na l di se as e the onl y 16 em plo y er li ab le sha ll be the e m

plo y er in w hose e m

plo ym en t the e m

plo y ee w as la st 17 injuriously

exposed to the hazar ds of em ploy m ent.”)

. By

way of counterpoint, under 18 the W orke rs ’ Co m

pe nsa tio n A ct , be ne fi ts ar e ca lc ula te d ac co rd ing to the “ da te of the 19 accidental inj ury

resulting in the disabilit y

or death.” N MSA1978 , § 52-1-48 (198 9).15

1 T his dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n the tw o sta tut es m ay re sul t fr om ale gis la tiv e re co gni tio n of 2 the latency

period of occupational di seases, which m ay not m anifest u ntil m any y ears 3 af te r the “ inj ur iou s ex posure . ” A cc or din gly , the January 2012 da te of di sa ble m en t 4 shall be used in determ ining W orker’ s com pensation rate. 5 CON CLU SION 6 { 25} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the or de r aw ar din g W or ker be ne fi ts, 7 re ve rs e the c al cu la tio n of be ne fi ts, an d re m an d fo r pr oc ee din gs co nsi ste nt w iththi s 8 Opi ni on . 9 { 26} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

10 11 C Y N TH IAA . F R Y , Ju dg e 12 WE CO NCUR:

13 14 JONA THA N B . S UTIN , Jud ge

15 16 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e