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 Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 THOMAS CORTEZ, 7 Worker-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 30,743 9 NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF 10 TRANSPORTATION & NEW MEXICO 11 RISK MANAGEMENT, 12 Employer/Insurer-Appellee. 13 APPEAL FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 14 Gregory D. Griego, District Judge 15 Victor Titus 16 Farmington, NM 17 for Worker 18 David L. Skinner 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellee 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 KENNEDY, Judge. 23 Worker appeals the WCJ’s order to the ex tent that he was limited to impairment 24 benefits based on his voluntary removal from the workforce. In our first and third 252 calendar notices, we proposed to affirm, and Worker responded with memoranda in 1 opposition. After due consideration of Worker’s arguments, we affirm. 2 Worker claims that it is wrong to assume that he permanently removed himself 3 “from the labor market.” [MIO 2] He c ontends that, where there is a preponderance 4 of evidence that he intended to continueto work, the WCJ could not find that he 5 voluntarily removed himself from the work force. [MIO 3] In support of his 6 argument, Worker refers to a case thatwas placed on the general calendar by this 7 Court, and claims that his case involves id entical issues. In the case referred to by 8 Worker, there was no dispute that, upon retirement, the worker planned to continue 9 a business that she had worked on the side while she was with her former employer. 10 In this case, on the other hand, Worker pr esented nothing to show that he planned to 11 move on to another job after his retirement. The WCJ did not err in determining that 12 Worker voluntarily removed himself from the work force by retiring. 13 Worker argues that he was not offered a permanent job after he was released to 14 return to work. He claims that no one te stified about the job offer, and Employer’s 15 Exhibit K does not address permanent employment. Worker claims that, without a 16 bona fide job offer, it was error to deny m odifiers after he reached MMI. [MIO 5] 17 Worker was released to modified duty on February 6. [RP 137] Employer 18 offered modified duty work to Worker at hi s pre-injury wage. [RP 138, 124] Worker 193 returned to work at modified duty for only three days. According to Worker’s 1 memorandum in opposition, Exhibit K disc usses the offer made to Worker of 2 modified duty, and his refusal to return to work. [MIO 5] After Worker was released 3 to modified duty with the ability to lif t 20 pounds, Worker again did not return to 4 work. [MIO 5] Still, Employer affirmedits willingness to have Worker return to 5 work at modified duty. [MIO 5] 6 In the findings submitted by Worker, he claims that Employer presented no 7 evidence that the job offer was from 2008 “ until the present.” [RP 125] As indicated 8 by Worker’s memorandum in opposition, Exhi bit K affirmed Employer’s willingness 9 to employ Worker at modified duty and included no time limits on the offer. Based 10 on the record before us, Worker never retu rned to work and never inquired about the 11 job offer or whether work at modified duty was still an option for him. There is no 12 indication that the offer of employment was temporary, and Worker presented no 13 evidence to support his suggestion that the o ffer was only temporary. In addition, as 14 discussed in our calendar notice, Worker provides no support for his claim that a job 15 offer must be a “permanent” job offer. We affirm on this issue. 16 We note that Worker submitted a proposed finding that he did not return to 17 work because he could not perform the wo rk at modified duty. [RP 124] Worker 18 provided no authority for the proposition that he may refuse an offer of work “based 194 alone on his own subjective view of his ability to perform the offered work, where the 1 job comes within the restrictions placed by the worker’s doctor.” See Sanchez v. 2 Zanio’s Foods, Inc. , 2005-NMCA-134, ¶ 67, 138 N.M. 555, 123 P.3d 788. 3 For the reasons discussed in this opini on and in our first and third calendar 4 notices, we affirm the decision of the WCJ. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 13