This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6

DOLORES SANCHEZ, 7 Worker-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 31,226 9 BEST WESTERN RIO GRANDE INN, 10 and HOSPITAL SERVICES CORP., 11 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 12
APPEAL FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 13 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge 14 Michael J. Doyle 15 Los Lunas, NM 16 for Appellant 17 Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick, P.C. 18 Phyllis Lynn 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellees 21
MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 WECHSLER, Judge. 232 Appellant Dolores Sanchez (Worker) appeals from the work ers’ compensation 1 judge’s (WCJ) compensation order that provides her some re lief, but provides in 2 relevant part that not all of her injuries are work-re lated and that Worker’s residual 3 physical capacity was light rather than se dentary. [RP Vol. II/232] Our notice 4 proposed to affirm, and Worker filed a timely memorandum in opposition pursuant 5 to a granted motion for extension of tim e. We remain unpe rsuaded by Worker’s 6 arguments and therefore affirm. 7 In issue (A), Worker continues to arguethat the WCJ erred in finding that her 8 T12-L1 back injury, which the WCJ viewed as correlating to Worker’s “low back 9 complaints” [RP 213], was not causally related to her August 7, 2006, work injury. 10 [DS 4; MIO 2-3; RP Vol. II/213-15, 232] As detailed in our notice, the WCJ 11 considered the conflicting opinions of Drs. Patton and Schultz to determine whether 12 Worker’s T12-L1 back injury was work-relate d. [RP Vol. II/213; DS 2] In addition, 13 the WCJ reviewed information in Worker’s medical records to assess the conflicting 14 opinions. [RP Vol. II/213] As discussed inour notice, the medical records supported 15 the opinion of Dr. Schultz that Worker’s T12- L1 injury was not cau sally related to her 16 work accident. [RP Vol. II/213-15; DS 1-3] While Worker maintains that Dr. 17 Schultz’s opinion was based on incomplete information [MIO 2-3], it was the WCJ’s 18 prerogative to assess credibility and weigh th e evidence, and determine that Worker’s 193 T12-L1 back injury was not causally related to her work accident. See generally 1 Moya v. City of Albuquerque , 2008-NMSC-004, ¶ 6, 143 N.M. 258, 175 P.3d 926 2 (stating that it is for the WCJ as the fact finder to assess credibility and weigh the 3 evidence); DeWitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. , 2009-NMSC-032, ¶ 12, 146 N.M. 453, 212 4 P.3d 341 (“Substantial evidence on the record as a whole is evidence demonstrating 5 the reasonableness of [the WCJ's] decision, and we ne ither re-weigh the evidence nor 6 replace the fact finder’s conclusions with our own.” (citation omitted)). 7 In issue (B), Worker continues to arguethat the WCJ erred in ruling that her 8 residual physical capacity was light, rather than finding her capable only of sedentary 9 activity. [DS 6; MIO 3; RP Vol. II/216, 232] As provided in our notice, as support for 10 the WCJ’s ruling, the July 23, 2009, func tional capacity evaluation identified that 11 Worker demonstrated lifting tolerance in the light level. [RP Vol. II/216] We 12 recognize Worker’s reliance on her treating physician’s view that she was capable 13 only of sedentary duty [DS 3; MIO 3], as we ll as Worker’s position that the functional 14 capacity evaluation did not consider all of the relevant medical records. [MIO 3] 15 However, it was the WCJ’s prerogative to rely on the functional capacity evaluation. 16 See Tom Growney Equip. Co. v. Jouett , 2005-NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 497, 113 17 P.3d 320 (explaining that “[w]here the testimony is conflicti ng, the issue on appeal is 18 not whether there is evidence to support a contrary result, but rather whether the 194 evidence supports the findings of the trie r of fact” (internal quotation marks and 1 citation omitted)). 2 In issue (C), Worker continues to argue that the WCJ erred in ruling that 3 Appellee (Employer) is not responsiblefor payment of Dr. Patton’s second 4 independent medical examination (IME). [DS 6; MIO 4; RP Vol. II/217, 231] 5 Worker maintains that Employer should have been required to pay for the IME 6 because an authorized health care provider referred her to Dr. Patton. [DS 6; MIO 4] 7 As we explained in our notice, however, the determinative inquiry for whether the 8 Employer should have been re quired to pay for the IME, however, is not whether an 9 authorized healthcare provider referred Worker to Dr. Patton for the second IME, but 10 instead whether such IME was agreed to or otherwise authorized by the WCJ. See 11 NMSA 1978, § 52-1-51(A) (2005) (“In the event of a dispute between the parties . . 12

. if the parties cannot agree upon the use of a specific independent medical examiner, 13 either party may petition a workers' compensation judge for permission to have the 14 worker undergo an independent medical ex amination.”) (Emphasis added.) Because 15 the second IME was not agreed to by the parties, nor authorized by the Workers’ 16 Compensation Administration [RP Vol. II/217], we affirm the WCJ’s ruling that 17 Employer did not have to pay for the second IME. 18 Lastly, we note that Worker’s memorandum in opposition does not further 195 contest the WCJ’s determination that he r date of medical maximum improvement 1 (MMI) was August 4, 2009, rather than D ecember 12, 2009. [DS 6; RP Vol. II/215, 2 232] For the reasons provided in our notice, we affirm this determination. 3 Based on the foregoing discussion, as well as the reasoning set forth in our 4 previous notice, we affirm. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

_______________________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8
WE CONCUR: 9

_____________________________ 10 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 11

_____________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13