IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 RALPH McGARY, 2 Worker-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 28,867 4 AMS STAFF LEASING and 5 DALLAS NATIONAL, 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 8 Victor S. Lopez, Workers’ Compensation Judge 9 Trenchard & Hoskins 10 Royce E. Hoskins 11 Paul Tellez 12 Roswell, NM 13 Diamond Law Firm 14 Jeffrey B. Diamond 15 Carlsbad, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Christina Bartosh Goodrow 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellant AMS Staff Leasing 20 Paul L. Civerolo, L.L.P. 21 Paul L. Civerolo 22 Albuquerque, NM 23 for Appellant Dallas National 242 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 CASTILLO, Judge. 2 Employer appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) decision. 3 This Court’s first notice of proposed dis position proposed summary reversal. Worker 4 filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. Employer filed a 5 memorandum in support of the proposed di sposition. We were not persuaded by 6 Worker’s arguments in opposition, and we reverse the WCJ’s decision. 7 Worker asserts that this Court’s proposed disposition is misplaced under 8 Ramirez v. Dawson Production Partners, Inc. , 2000-NMCA-011, 128 N.M. 601, 995 9 P.2d 1043, because it fails to lend credence to the amount of travel required for non10 supervisory oilfield workers in southeast New Mexico to get to their places of 11 employment. [MIO 8] Worker further contends that Flores v. McKay Oil Corp., 12 2008-NMCA-123, 144 N.M. 782, 192 P.3d 777, is distinguishable because contrary 13 to the evidence in this case, the workers in Floreshad a fixed situs of work. [MIO 9, 14 n.1] Worker further asserts that his injury occurred at a place and time where he was 15 reasonably fulfilling his duties of employment, traveling as a crew member to varying 16 drilling site locations. [MIO 9] We disagree. 17 Worker points out evidence that oilfield workers travel extensively as part of 18 their jobs throughout the year because the oil drilling companies move their rigs from 193 various locations in southeas t New Mexico and West Texas. [MIO 3] In fact, 1 Employer was operating six drilling rigs invarious locations in southeast New 2 Mexico. [MIO 5] In addition, the various drilling rigs operated by Employer were 3 located anywhere from 10 to 120 miles awayfrom Carlsbad. Thus, Worker asserts 4 that he might be expected to travel betw een home and alternating oil rigs. [MIO 3] 5 Nevertheless, the evidence is undisputed that the rig had a fixed location and 6 that Worker commuted forty miles from his home to the same fixed work site. Cf. 7 Flores , 2008-NMCA-123, ¶ 27 (determining that the workers were not traveling 8 employees where the fixed rig site was lo cated thirty-seven miles from the workers’ 9 homes and the evidence showed th at workers were commuters); see Ramirez , 2000- 10 NMCA-011, ¶ 11 (“Traveling employees are employees for whom travel is an integral 11 part of their jobs, such as those who trav el to different locations to perform their 12 duties, as differentiated from employees w ho commute daily from home to a single 13 workplace.” (internal quotation marks and c itation omitted)). [DS 6] While future 14 assignments might require Worker to travel , at the time of the accident, there is no 15 question that Worker had but one work s ite he traveled to on a daily basis. See Flores , 16 2008-NMCA-123, ¶ 18 (stating that the travelrequired of a traveling employee takes 17 the employee between different work sites). 18 In addition, while Worker asserts it was standard practice in the industry for the 194 driller to pick up the crew and drive them tothe rig site to ensure they showed up 1 ready to work at a particular time [MIO 4] , there was no evidence that these were the 2 circumstances here. Similarly, to the extent it was industry standard for the employer 3 to pay the driller a travel allowance to perform his functi on on behalf of the employer 4 [MIO 4], there was no such evidence here. Worker testified that he was not paid 5 compensation or gas money for travel to and from the rig. [DS 6 ] Worker also relies 6 on his erratic work schedule as a relief crew member and how this exposed him to 7 increased risks while conferring a benefit to Employer by providing time off for 8 regular crew members. [MIO 4, 9] Tothe extent the WCJ made findings in this 9 regard [RP 449, fof 17; RP 455, fof 52-54; RP 460, fof 82-86], we hold that the facts 10 in this case do not support the legal conclusion that Worker was a “traveling” 11 employee. 12 We hold that Ramirez is factually distinguishable. In Ramirez , the fact that workers 13 provided their own transportation in excha nge for having an extra crew member was 14 merely supplemental to the fact that workers were on special assignment and were 15 provided $56.50 per day for lodging, meals, and travel to a site ninety miles away. 16 Ramirez , 2000-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 2-3. These supplemental facts are the essence of a 17 traveling employee. See Flores , 2008-NMCA-123, ¶ 17 (“An example of the traveling 18 employee is one whose job takes the employee on the road over such distances that require 195 eating and sleeping away from home, all to fulfill the duties of employment and further the 1 employer’s business”). Unlike Ramirez , here the fact that Worker was a member of the 2 relief crew and drove himself to work, in spite of his erratic schedule that was merely a 3 coincidental benefit to Employer. Employer did not provide for Worker’s transportation 4 in any way. Cf. Flores , 2008-NMCA-123, ¶ 23 (“Employer did not furnish transportation, 5 nor did it specifically pay to transport its workers to the rig.”). 6 Worker cites Loffland Brothers v. Baca , 651 P.2d 431 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982), and 7 Lassabe v. Simmons Drilling Inc. , 743 P.2d 568 (Mont. 1987), in support of his 8 contention. Floreshas already distinguished Loffland for our purposes in cases such as are 9 presented here. We are reluctant to rely on authority from other jurisdictions when New 10 Mexico case law sufficiently addresses the issues. Nevertheless, these cases are factually 11 distinguishable because, as demonstrated by the quotes taken from the cases, the 12 employers explicitly provided for the workers’ transportation. See Loffland Bros. , 651 13 P.2d at 432; Lassabe , 743 P.2d at 571. It also appears that in Loffland Brothers , the 14 workers were on special assignment, working on a rig in another state, and the workers 15 stayed there for two months. Loffland Bros. , 651 P.2d at 432. 16 Finally, to the extent Worker asserts that the issue presented is one of 17 substantial public interest to oilfield workers in New Mexico [MIO 13], we believe 18 the law is clear and provides a framework of factors to consider in analyzing the 196 traveling employee exception. The changi ng circumstances and conditions in the 1 industry are sufficiently addressed in recent case law, including Flores , which was 2 published this year. Worker has not provide d a factual scenario warranting a different 3 interpretation under the law. 4 It is this Court’s function to interpret the law, and we are not bound by the 5 WCJ’s legal interpretation. Morningstar Water Uses Ass’n v. New Mexico Pub. 6 Utility Comm’n , 120 N.M. 579, 583, 904 P.2d 28, 32 ( 1995). We hold that the facts 7 of this case do not establish a traveling employee scenario. For these reasons and 8 those stated in the first notice of pr oposed disposition, we reverse the WCJ. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

________________________________ 11 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

________________________________ 14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 15

________________________________ 16 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 17