This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 DAVID FRANK VIGIL, 2 Worker-Appellant, 3 v. No. 32,873 4 JOHNSON CONTROLS OF 5 NORTHERN NEW MEXICO, 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE NEW MEXICO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 8 ADMINISTRATION 9 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge 10 David S. Proffit 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Kelly A. Genova PC 14 Kelly A. Genova 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 192 {1} Worker appeals a compensation order determining that Worker is no longer 1 entitled to medical benefits. In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we 2 proposed to affirm. Worker has filed a memorandum in opposition, which this Court 3 has duly considered. As we do not find Wo rker’s arguments persuasive, we affirm. 4
{2} Worker contends that the uncontradictedmedical evidence rule requires reversal 5 in this case, because the workers’ comp ensation judge (WCJ) should have found that 6 there was uncontradicted medical evidence th at Worker’s disability was a natural and 7 direct result of his work-related injury. [D S 7-8] In our notice of proposed summary 8 disposition, we proposed to hold that the evidence was not uncontradicted. We 9 pointed out that, contrary to Dr. Evans’s testimony, Worker’s own deposition 10 testimony in another case indicated that he had suffered an aggravation when he was 11 in two non-work-related car accidents. In addition, Dr. Garc ia testified that it was her 12 opinion that the 2009 accidents caused a permanent aggravation of Worker’s 13 condition, and that as a consequence, the 2009 accidents resulted in a break in 14 causation from the original work-related injury. See Aragon v. State Corrections 15 Dep’t, 113 N.M. 176, 179-82, 824 P.2d 316, 319- 22 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that 16 when a prior work-related injury is aggravated by a subsequent non-work related 17 accident that is not part of the normal eventsof everyday life, such as a subsequent car 18 accident, an employer is not liable for continued care). 193 {3} In Worker’s memorandum in opposition, he has provided this Court with no 1 new arguments or authority that would persuade us that summary affirmance is not 2 appropriate in this case. Instead, Worker argues that b ecause Dr. Garcia’s testimony 3 was equivocal at points, Dr. Evans’s te stimony was uncontradicted. Even assuming 4 that any equivocation on Dr. Garcia’s part would somehow nullify the ways in which 5 her testimony contradicted that of Dr. Evan s, Worker’s argument disregards the fact 6 that his own deposition testimony in another case contradicted Dr. Evans’s testimony, 7 and Dr. Evans’s testimony was largely based on Worker’s own self-reports to her. 8 Therefore, the district court was not required to accept Dr. Evans’s testimony on 9 causation pursuant to the uncontradi cted medical evidence rule. See Hernandez v. 10 Mead Foods, Inc. , 104 N.M. 67, 70-71, 716 P.2d 645, 648-49 (Ct. App. 1986) (stating 11 that the rule does not apply when th e testimony by the Worker’s expert “is 12 contradicted, or subjected to reasonable doubt as to its truth or veracity, by legitimate 13 inferences drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case”). 14
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed 15 summary disposition, we affirm. 16
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 194 WE CONCUR: 1

2 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 3

4 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 5