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 28, 201 5 4 N O. 32, 847 5 MARSHALL RICHE Y, 6 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll an t, 7 v
. 8 HAM MON D C ONS ERV AN CYDIST RIC T, 9 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA N JU AN CO UN TY 11 Wi lli am C . Bi rd sal l, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 Alexander A. W old, P. C. 13 Alexander A. W old, Jr. 14 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 15 fo r Appe llant 16 Mi ll er St rat ve rt, P.A. 17 T im oth y

R. Br igg s 18 Luke A . S alganek 19 Albuquerque, N M 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} T he O pinio n fi le d onO ct obe r 15, 201 4 is w ith dr awn, a nd the f oll ow ing 4 Opinion is s ubsti tuted in it s place. 5 { 2} Pl ai nti ff

, Mars ha ll Ri ch ey , appe al s fr om the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of 6 D ef en d a n t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m up o n w h i c h r e l i e f ca n be 7 granted pursuant to Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMR A. Plaintiff c o n t en d s that the dist rict 8 co urt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing that the f

ac ts a lleged in his a m en de d c om pla int f ai le d to 9 sta te ac l a i m

w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v i t y

e x c e p t i o n t o t h e N e wM e x i c o W o rk e r s’ 10 Co m pe nsa tio n A ct (the A ct ), as r ec ogni ze d in De lgad o v. Phelps Dodg e Chin o, Inc. , 11 2001 -N MS C- 034, 131 N
. M. 272 , 34 P
. 3d 1148. W e hold tha t the al le ga tio ns in the 12 am en de d co m

pla int ar e suf

fi ci en t to sa tis fy Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ). W e the re fo re r ev er se 13 an d r em an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. 14 BACKGRO UND 15 { 3} Pl a i nt i f

f w a s i nj ur e d w hi l e w or ki ng f or H a m m on d C on se rvanc y

D i str ict 16 (D ef en dant) , an d f

ile d ape rs ona l i nj ur

y c la im pur suant t o D el

gado
. Plaintiff pleaded 17 the f oll ow ing f

ac ts i n hi s am en de d c om pla int
. I n 20 10, P la int iff worke d f or 18 Em ploy ee Connections, Inc. , a s a tem porary worker
. On October 18, 2010, E m ploy ee 19 Co nne ct ion s “ loane d” P la int if f to H am m ond Co nse rv an cy

D istri ct ( D ef en dant) a s a2

1 te m por ar y w orke r. A t D ef

en dant’ s dir ec tio n, Pl ai nti ff use d asm al l- diam et er , sho rt 2 nozzle, high-pressure w ater hose to clean c ulverts used for flood control. Prior to that 3 d at e, several w orkers, includi ng Plaintiff, had a dvised Defendant that the hose was 4 ve ry di ffi cu lt to co nt ro l an d h adrep or te d “ ne ar m is se s o f se rio us in jury an d d eat h.” 5 T he w orke rs , inc lud ing P la int if f, w ar ne d D ef en dant tha t i nj ur

y f ro m usi ng the hos e 6 to clean out culverts wa s “ certa in to result.” In spite of the worker s’ protests and ov er 7 Pl ai nti ff

’ s ob j ec tio ns, D ef

en dant d ir ec te d Pl ai nti ff to u se the hos e to c le anthe c ulv er t. 8 T he hos e “ fa ile d to pr ev en t the los s of co ntr ol” an d, as a re sul t, w at er f ro m the hig h9 pr es sur e hose w as “ inj ec te d di re ct ly int o . . . P la int if

f, ” ca usi ng s ev er e inj ur ie s. 10 { 4} Pl ai nti ff al le ge d tha t D ef en dant kne w the as sig ne d ta sk w as virtua ll yc er ta in 11 to c au se inj ur

y or de ath and tha t c om

pe lli ng h im

to pe rf orm the ta sk in spi te of

the 12 num erous em

ploy ee com

plaints and objec tions wa s egregious. Plaintiff a lso alleged 13 tha t D ef

en dant’ s e gr eg iou s c ondu ct w as the dir ec t, na tur al , an d proxi m at e ca use of 14 his inj ur ie s. 15 { 5} De fendant m oved to d ism iss pu rsuant to Rule 1-012 (B)( 6), arguing th at 16 Pl ai nti ff

’ s c la im s w er e barr ed

by the e xc lus ivi ty pr ovi sio ns of the A ct a nd c la im ing 17 gove rn m en ta l i m

m uni ty und er the T ort C la im s A ct , N MS A 197 8, §§ 41-1- 1 to - 30 18 (1 976, a s am en de d th ro ugh 2013 ). P la int if f m ove d to stay

D ef en dant’ s R

ule 1- 1 9 0 1 2 (B )( 6 ) mot i o n p en d i n g d i s co v ery. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt h el da h ea ri n g o n Pl ai n t i ff ’s3

1 m otion t o s tay , and Plaintiff wa s perm itted to am end his com plaint. T he parties 2 co m ple te d br ie fi ng on D ef

en dant’ s m oti on t o di sm iss
. A ft er c ondu ct ing ahe ar ing on 3 the m oti on, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed Pl ai nti ff ’ s cla im s w ithpr ej udi ce pur suant t o 4 Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ). T his appe al f oll ow ed
. 5 DISC US SION 6 { 6} Th e f

u n d amen t al qu es t i o n p re s en t ed i n t h i s ap p ea l i s wh et h erPl ai n t i ff ’s 7 am ended com

pla i n t included facts sufficient to state a claim under D el

gado . To 8 re s o l v e t h i s qu es t i o n , it i s n ec es s ary t o fi rs t ex amin e th e e v o l u t i o n o f N ew Me x i co ’s 9 i n t e n t i o n a l c o n du c te x c e p t i o n t o Wo rk e r ’s C o mp e n s a t i o n e x c l u s i v i t y. 10 Th e In te nt ion al C on du ctEx ce pt ion t o W or k er ’s C om pe ns at ion Ex cl us ivi ty 11 { 7} The purpose of the A ct’ s exclusivi ty provisio n is to achieve balance betwe en 12 inj ur ed

w orke rs ’ ne ed

f or c om pe nsa tio n and e m

plo y er s’ ne ed

to lim it lia

bil ity f or 13 wor k- rel at ed in

juri es . Coates v. W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 1999 -N MS C- 013, ¶ 24, 127 1 4 N
. M
. 4 7 , 9 7 6 P
. 2 d9 9 9
. H o w e v e r , t h e A c t ’ s e x c l u s i v i t y d o e s n o tp r e c l u d e c l a i ms 15 ag ai ns t em

pl oyers t ha t i nt en ti on al ly infl ic t i nju ry up on work ers . Id

. 16 { 8} Pr ior

to our S upr em e Co ur t’s deci sio n in D el gado in 200 1, w orker inj uries 17 w er e onl y

c om pe nsa ble out sid e the A ct

if the inj ur ed w orke r co uld de m onstrate the 18 em pl oyer’s actua l i nt en t t o i nju re th e wor ke r. See Colem an v. E ddy Potash, Inc. , 19 19 95 -NMSC -0 63 , ¶ 26 , 1 20 N.M. 64 5, 90 5 P.2 d 1 85 , ov errul ed byD el gado , 200 1-4

1 N MS C- 034, ¶ 23 n
. 3; see a lso Flores v. Danfelser , 1999-NMC A- 091, ¶ 17, 127 N. M. 2 57 1, 9 85 P.2d 17 3, ov errul ed byD el gado , 200 1- N MS C-0 34 , ¶ 23 n
. 3; Jo hnso n 3 Co n t r o l

s W orld Servs., Inc. v. Barnes , 1 9 9 3
- N M C A
- 0 0 4 , ¶ 1 2 , 1 1 5 N
. M
. 1 1 6 , 847 4 P.2 d 7 61 , o v e r r u l e d

b yD el gado , 2 001- N MS C- 034, ¶ 23 n
. 3; M

aesta s v . E l Paso 5 Na tural G as C

o. , 199 0- N MC A -0 92, ¶ 9, 110 N
. M. 609, 798 P. 2d 2 10, ov errul ed by 6 D el gado , 200 1- N MS C- 034, ¶ 23 n
. 3; G all egos v . Ch astain , 1981 -N MC A -0 14, ¶ 5, 7 95 N.M . 55 1, 6 24 P.2d 60 , ov errul ed byD el gado , 200 1- N MS C- 034, ¶ 23 n
. 3; 8 Sanf ord v. Presto M

fg. Co

. , 197 9- N MC A -0 59, ¶ 14, 92 N
. M. 746 , 594 P
. 2d 1 202, 9 ov errul ed

byD el gado , 2001-NMS C-034, ¶ 23 n.3. O ur co u rt s ad opted th is actual 10 int en t t es t f

ro m Prof es sor L ar son’ s tr eatis e, 6 A rthur L ar son & L ex K
. L ar son, 11 La rso n’

s W or ke rs’ Co m pe nsat ion L aw§ 10 3. 03 ( 2000 )

. D el gado , 200 1- N MS C- 034, 12 ¶ 16. 13 D el gado 14 { 9} In200 1, our

S upr em e Co urt de ci de d D el gado , w hic h c hang ed the lawby 15 br oa de ni ng th e ex cl us iv it y ex cep ti on . Pad il la v. W all Co lm onoyCo rp. , 200 6- 16 N MC A -1 37, ¶

9, 140 N
. M. 630 , 145 P
. 3d 110. I n D el gado , the w orker w as ordered 17 by his sup ervisor to rem ove a fifteen- foot ir on cauldron b rim m ing ov er w ith m olten 18 sla g, w ith out

shu tti ng d ow n af

ur na ce or oth er w ise c or re ct ing ane s p e c i al ly

dange ro us 19 em er ge nc y

“ runaw ay ” co ndi tio n th at c au se d a ddi tio na l sl ag to co nti nue f low ing
.5

1 2001 -N MS C- 034, ¶

4. A lth ough the w orke r pr ote ste d th e or de rs , a nd i nf orm ed the 2 supe rv iso r tha t he wa s not qual if ie d or com

pe te nt t o pe rf

orm the r em ova l be ca

use he 3 ha d ne ve r ope rate d akr es s- haul ( a spe ci al tr uc k f or r em ovi ng the c au ldr on) a lon e 4 un de r su ch co nd it io ns , th e su p e r vi so r in si st edhe pro ceed
. Id

. ¶ 5. T he worker 5 “ em erg ed

f ro m the sm oke -f

ill ed tun ne l, f ull y e ngul fe d inf

la m es , ” suf

fe ri ng thir d6 de gr ee b urns ov er h is en ti re b od y . Id

. He lat er d ie d o f hi s i nju rie s. Id

. 7 { 10} T he Co urt e xa m ine d th e ac tua l i nte nt t es t, an d re j ec te d it as unba lanc ed in f av or 8 of em pl oyers. See id. ¶

23 ( “ U nde r the a ct

ua l i nte nt t es t, asin gle standard of 9 culpabilit y , nam ely willfulness, will prevent a w orker fr om benefitting from

the Ac t 10 w hil e pr es er

vin g th e co rr es pond ing be ne fi ts f or the em plo y er . T his bia s vi ola te s th e 11 explicit m andate of Se ction 5 2 -5 -1 , which dem ands the equal treatm ent of worker s 12 and em

ploy ers. ”) I n order to add re s s the egregious cond uct of the em ploy er in that 13 case, and to restore balance and equalityto the Ac t, the Suprem e Cou rt s et forth a new 14 te st f or de te rm ini ng w he n c ondu ct f al ls o uts ide the sc ope of

the A ct : 15 [W ] illfulness renders a worker ’ s injury non-acciden t al , and therefore 16 outsi de the scope of t he Ac t, w hen: (1) the wor ker or em ploy er e ngages 17 in an in te nti ona l a ct or om iss ion , without

j ust c au se or e xc use , that i s 18 re as ona

bly e xpe ct ed to re sul t i n th e inj ur y suff er ed by the w orke r; ( 2) 19 the w orke r or em plo y er ex pe ct s the int en tio na l ac t or om iss ionto re sul t 20 in the inj ur

y , or ha s utte rl y di sr eg arde d th e co nse que nc es ; and ( 3) the 2 1 i n t e n t i o n a l a c to r o mi s s i o n p r o x i mat e l y c au s e s t h e i n ju ry. 22 D el gado , 200 1- N MS C- 034, ¶ ¶ 23, 24, 26.6

1 { 11} The f

irst elem ent of the D elgad o te st l ooks a t “ w he the r a re as ona ble pe rs on 2 w oul d e x p e c t t h e i n

j u ry s u f f e r e d b y t h e w o r

k e r t o f l o w f r o m t h e i n t e n t i o n a l a c tor 3 om issio n.” Id

. ¶ 27. T he se co nd e le m en t “ re qui re s an e xa m ina tio n of the sub j ec tiv e 4 s t at e o f m ind of the worker or em ploy er. ” Id

. ¶ 2 8. T hi s e l e m e nt

i s sat i sf i e d w hen 5 the worker

or em ploy er e ither failed to consider the consequences of the intentional 6 act or o m is si on , or c on si de redth e co ns eq ue nc es an d e xp ect edth e in jury to o ccu r. Id

. 7 T his e le m en t i s no t satis fi ed w he re “ the w orke r or

e m plo y er c onside re d th e 8 co ns eq ue nc es an d neg li ge nt ly fai le d to ex pe ctth e wor ke r’s in jury to b e am on g t he m .” 9 Id

. Fin al ly, th e th ird ele m en t re qu ire s p ro xi m at e cau se . Id

. ¶ 29
. 10 Morales 11 { 12} In M

oral es v . R ey nolds , 200 4- N MC A -0 98, 136 N
. M. 280 , 97 P
. 3d 6 12, thi s 12 Co ur t c o n s o l i d ate d and d ec ide d th e fi rs t tw o c as es inv olv ing D el gado c la im s r ea ch ing 13 us after the D el

gado de ci si on . M

oral es , 2 0 0 4-NMC A- 093, ¶¶ 1, 10. T he Morales 14 ca se w as an ap pe al fr om adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the 15 em pl oyer. Id

. ¶ 3. T he Fe rnan dezc as e ap pe al ed adis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al f or 16 fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . Id

. ¶ 5. 17 { 13} O ur fo cu s in Morales w as on “ the pr oc ed ur al a nd e vid en tiary

r equir em en ts a 18 plaintiff m

ust m eet in order to o v ercom e a m otion to dism iss or for sum m ary 19 j udgm ent.” Dom ingu ez v. Pe rovich Props., Inc. , 2005-NMC A- 050, ¶ 16, 137 N. M.7

1 401, 111 P. 3d 72 1. T o determ ine whether the worker s’ claim s m et the D el gado 2 re qui re m en ts a s am atte r of law , w e con sid er ed the ty pe of e m plo y er c ondu ct D el

gado 3 so ug ht to de te r. Morales , 20 04 -NMCA- 09 8, ¶ 1 0. 4 { 14} Beca

use the D el

gado Court did not elaborate on the ty pe of em ploy er c ondu ct 5 tha t w oul d r en de r a w orke r’ s in j ur y co m pe nsa ble unde r the ne wte st, w e loo ke d to the 6 fact s o f th atcas e fo r gu id an ce. Morales , 2004-NMC A- 098, ¶ 9
. W e d eterm ined that 7 the D el gado de ci sio n st em

m ed f ro m “ a co m bin at ionof de ad ly

c ondi tio ns, pr of

it8 m otivated disregard for easily im plem ented safety

m easures, com

plete lack of w orker 9 tr ai nin g or

pr ep ar at ion , and o utr igh t de nia l of a ssi stanc e to a

w orke r in a

te rr if y ing 10 situatio n.” Morales , 20 04 -NMCA- 09 8, ¶ 1 0. 11 { 15} W e co nc lud ed D e l g a d o pl ainti ff

s “ m ust ple ad or pr es en t e vid en ce that the 12 em ploy er m et eac h of the three D el gado e l e men t s t h r o u g h a c t i o n s t h a t e x e mp l i f y a 13 co m para ble de gr ee of

e gr eg iou sne ss a s th e em

plo y er in D el gado in or de r to s urviv e 14 a p re-tr ial dispo sitive m otion .” Morales , 200 4- N MC A -0 98, ¶ 14. W e co m

pare d th is 15 thr es hol d de te rmina tio n of e gr eg iou sne ss t o th e re qui re m en t in inte nti ona l i nf lic tio n 16 of e m oti ona l di str es s ( II E D ) ca se s, w he re “ w e re qu ire th e court to de te rm ine a s a 17 m atte r of law w he the r co nduc t re as ona bly m ay be re gard ed as so ex tre m e and 18 outrageous that it will perm it recovery [. ] ” Id

. ¶ 15 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 19 citation om itted).8

1 { 16} T he pur

pose f or athr es hol d de te rm ina tio n of eg re gio usne ss i n D el gado cases 2 wa s to “ preserve the bar gain of t h e Ac t in a m eaningful way .” Morales , 200 4- 3 N MC A -0 98, ¶

16. O ur c onc er n w as that “ [e ] xpos ing em pl oyers to the c ost s of 4 lit iga tin g af

ull tr ia l onthe m er its of

e ve ry c as e in whic h a w orke r al le ge s so m e w ilf ul 5 co nduc t or

c la im s th at

sa fe ty w as ign or ed du e to p ro fi t m oti ve w oul d de pr ive 6 em ploy ers of their benefit from the Ac t’ s bargain.” Id

. Eve n un su cces sf

ul cl ai m s, we 7 re as one d, “ w oul d be a si gn ificant dra in o n an e m plo y er ’ s f inanc ia l r es our ce s if

a ll 8 questio ns of em

ploy er intent, no m atter how sligh t, w ere sent to a jur y .” Id

. 9 { 17} Holding that both the M oral es and the F

ernand ez pla int if fs fa ile d to sa tis fy

the 10 thr es hol d de te rm ina tio n of e gr eg iou s em

plo y er co nduc t, as w el l a s th e re qui re m en ts 11 of D el gado , we affi rm ed th e di st ric t cou rts ’ de ci si on s in bo th cas es . Morales , 200 4- 12 N MC A -0 98, ¶

1. 13 Sa laz ar I and Sa laz ar I I 14 { 18} In 2 0 0 5 , t h i s Co u rt ad d re s s ed t h e q u es t i o n o f w h et h ert h e r ec ei p to f Wo rk er ’s 15 C om pe ns a t i on be ne f

i t s pr e c l ud e s a n i nj ur e d w or ke r f r om f i l i ng a Delgad

o c l a i m. 16 Sala zar v. Torres , 200 5- N MC A -1 27, ¶ 1, 138 N
. M. 510, 122 P. 3d 1 279 ( Salazar I ), 17 re v’d in par t , 2007 -N MS C- 019, 141 N
. M. 559 , 158 P
. 3d 4 49 ( Sala zar II ). I n Salazar 18 I , the e m plo y er ins tr uc te d th e w orke r to s tart a tru ck by pouri ng g as oli ne int o th e 19 tr uc k’ s c ar bur et or . 200 5- N MC A -1 27, ¶ 2. Whil e the w orke r w as still pouri ng the9

1 ga so li ne , th e em

pl oyer in st ru ct edth e wor ke r’s so n t o s ta rt t he tru ck ’s ig ni ti on . Id

. 2 The en gi ne ig ni te d t he ga so li ne an d t he work er was sev erel y bu rn ed
. Id

. 3 { 19} T he w orke r re ce ive d W orke r’ s C om pe nsa tio n be nefi ts, a nd e nte re d in to a 4 settlem ent which included a lu m p-sum paym ent for perm anent partial disabilityas 5 well as f

ut ur e m ed ic al be ne fit s. Id

. ¶¶ 3, 31 (Pickard, J., specially concurring in part 6 an d di sse nti ng i n part ). T he w orke r subs eque ntl y f ile d ac la im

f or da m ag es , pur suant 7 to D el gado
. Salazar

I , 2005 -N MCA -127, ¶ 3. The em ploy er m oved fo r s u m

m ary 8 jud gm en t an d t he work er re sp on de d. Id

. T he n, “ fo r the f

ir st tim e in i ts r ep ly

to the 9 re spon se , [ the e m

plo y er ] co nt en de d th at

[ the w ] orke r’ s ve rs ionof the f ac ts, e ve n if 10 true, would not rise to th e level of e gregiousn ess suffici en t t o suppo rt a D el gado 11 claim .” Salazar

I , 200 5- N MC A -1 27, ¶

3. Su m m ar y j udgm en t w as gr an te d w ith out 12 an ex pl an at io n o f th e d is tri ctco ur t’s re as on in g. Id

. 13 { 20} A di vi de d p an el rev ers ed th e di st ric t cou rt’s gran t of summ ary jud gm en t. Id

. 14 ¶¶ 1, 30. T he m aj ority noted that in m any

cases, injure d workers, fac ed with m edical 1 5 b i l l s a n da n i n a

b i l i t y t o wo rk , wi l l n o tb e “i n a f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n t o w a i to u tal e n g t h y, 16 ex pe nsi ve a nd r isky

c ourt pr oc ee din g to be c om pe ns at ed for

the inj ur y , due to the 17 problem s of pressing m edical bills, and often the inabili ty to work. ” Id

. ¶ 11 (internal 18 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). A s ar es ult , th e m aj or ity c onc lud ed

that “ to 19 co nsi de r the r ec ei pt o f be ne fi ts a f or fe iture of

[ a w orke r’ s] right to pur sue the10

1 em plo y er in the c ourts w oul d no t on ly be hars h and unj ust , it

w oul d al so f

ru str at e the 2 laudable purpos es of the A ct.” Id

. (a lte ratio n, int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 3 om itted). 4 { 21} Addressing the em ploy er’ s argum ent that the worker’ s allegations, even if true, 5 would not satis fy

the required elem ents of a D el gado c la im , the m aj or ity

he ld tha t: 6 W orker’ s com

plaint tracks the language of D el gado verbatim

in so far 7 as alleging the m ental state on [the e ] mployer’s part, and [the e] m ploy er 8 never subm itted an affidavit in contestin g t h es e allegations. O ur law 9 sim

ply r equir es not ic e ple adi ng , and without any m otion fo r s u mm ary 10 j udgm en t su

ppor te d by [ the e]m

plo y er ’ s own a ff

idavit r eg ar din g 11 w ill fu lne ss, w e hol d th at [ the w ] orke r’ s a lle ga tions tra ck ing the 12 language of D el gado w er e suf

fi ci en t to w ith stand w ha t w as tantam ount 1 3 t o amo t i o n t o d i s mi s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m. 14 Salazar

I , 2005-NMC A- 127, ¶ 27 (em phasis add ed) (c itation o m itted). 15 { 22} A spe ci al c onc ur re nc e an d disse nt t ook iss ue w iththe m aj or ity ’ s ho ldi ngs 16 related to both the pleadin g standard and receipt of benefits for D el gado cl ai m s. 17 Salazar

I , 200 5- N MC A -1 27, ¶

¶ 36, 37 (P ic kard , J. , spe ci al ly c onc ur ri ng i n part

a nd 18 dis se nti ng i n part ). A s to the iss ue of be ne fi ts, the dis se nt e xpr es se d c onc er n th at by 19 allowing em

ploy ees to sue in tort after acce pting com pensatio n , t h e m ajority

wa s 20 di srup ti ng th e Act ’s bal an ce o f in te res ts . Se e id. ¶ 34 ( Pi ck ar d, J. , dis se nti ng) ( “ [T ] he 21 Ac t represe nts a bargain betwee n em ploy ers a n d workers pursuant to which eac h 22 giv es up r igh ts and o bli ga tio ns i n re tur n for som e oth er

be ne fi t. T he A ct

ba lanc es a 23 w orke r’ s ne ed

f or e xpe dit iou s paym ent of be nefi ts and an e m plo y er ’ s ne ed

to lim it11

1 lia bil ity
. I n [ the dis se nti ng Jud ge ’s] vi ew , the m aj or ity ti ps this ba lanc e en tir el y to 2 the side of the worker [. ] ” (c itation o m itted)). 3 { 23} T he spe ci al c onc ur re nc e advoc at ed

f or am or e str ingent pl ea din g st an dard in 4 ca se s in vol vin g D el

gado c la im s, statin g: 5 Our m ost r ecent cases of Dom ingu ez a nd Morales have required a level 6 of

e greg iousne ss o f em

plo y er be ha vio r co m

para ble to tha t f

ound in 7 D el

gado
. 8
. . . . 9 So as not to require em ploy ers t o l itigate in circum stances wher e a 10 worker cannot establish th e re quisi te D el gado w ill fu lne ss at

the ti m e of 11 the f

iling of th e co m

pla int , I w oul d a dopt

aple ad ing r equir em en t i n 12 D el

gado cas es that r equir es w orke rs to ple ad suf fi ci en t f ac ts 13 de m onstratin g that th e standard is m et or be sub j ec t t o di sm iss al f

or 14 fa ilure to state ac la im upo n w hic h r el ie f can be gr an te d. 15 Salazar

I , 2005-NMC A- 127, ¶ 38 (Pickar d, J. , specia lly concurring). 16 { 24} O ur

S upr em e Co urt gr an te d ce rt ior ar i to re sol ve the que sti on of “ w he the r an d 17 when a w orker can rece ive benefits under the Ac t without com prom ising a potential 18 intentio nal tort action und er D el gado .” Sala zar II

, 2007 -N MS C- 019, ¶ 4. “ Ba se d on 19 the clear

intent of the Act, ” th e Cou rt h eld that when a w orker suffer s a w ork-relate d 20 in jury, an d “ qu es ti on s wh et he r the in j ur y w as inten ti on al ly infl ic te d b y th e em pl oyer,” 21 the worker

m ay collect benefits under the Ac t, “ while pursuing an i ntentio nal tort 22 action und er D el

gado .” Sala zar II

, 200 7- N MS C- 019, ¶

1. H ow ev er , the Co urt a lso 23 co nc lud ed

that w he n a w orke r en te rs int o af ina l se ttl em en t of

the c la im in ex ch an ge12

1 fo r a lum

p- sum paym en t of

in de mni ty

be ne fi ts, the w orke r is the n pr ec lud ed f ro m 2 pursuin g a D el

gado cla im
. Sala zar II

, 200 7- N MS C- 019, ¶ 1. B ec au se the w orke r in 3 t h a tc a s e h a dr e c e i v e dal u mp - s u m p a yme n t , r e p r e s e n t i n g f u l l s e t t l e me n t o f h i s c l a i m, 4 the Co urt r ev er se d Salazar I
. Sala zar II

, 2 00 7- NMSC -0 19 , ¶ 1. Not ab ly, Sala zar II 5 did not r ev er se the m aj or ity ’ s ho ldi ng i n Sa l az ar I as to the ple ad ing standard f or 6 D el gado cl ai m s. Sala zar II

, 200 7- N MS C- 019, ¶

¶ 4, 30. 7 Th e P re se ntC ase 8 Stand ard of R eview 9 { 25} W e re view m otion s to dis m iss a com plaint for failu re to state a claim under 10 Ru le 1-0 12 (B)( 6) de no vo . Hea lt hs ou rc e, In c. v. X-Ray Ass oc s. o f N.M. , 200 5- 11 N MC A -0 97, ¶

16, 138 N
. M. 70, 116 P
. 3d 8 61. I n c onsi de ri ng a m oti on t o di sm iss , 12 w e te st “ the le ga l su ff ic ie nc y of the c om pla int , not

the f ac tua l al le ga tio ns o f the 13 pl ead in gs whi ch , forpu rp os es of ru li ng on th e m ot io n, th e co ur t m us t accep t as t ru e.” 14 H erre ra v . Q ual ityP ont iac , 200 3- N MS C- 018, ¶ 2, 134 N .M. 43, 7 3 P
. 3d 1 81 15 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). A ccepting all we ll-pleaded factual 16 al le gatio ns i n th e co m pla int a s tr ue , w e “ re sol ve al l doubt s in fav or of suf fi ci en cy of 17 the com

plaint.” D el

fin o v . G rif

fo , 2011 -N MS C- 015, ¶ 9, 150 N
. M. 97, 257 P
. 3d 9 17 18 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). D ism iss al und er Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ) 19 is a ppr opr ia te onl y w he re the non- m ovi ng party is “ not e nti tle d to r ec ove r unde r an y13

1 t he or y of t he f

a c t s a l l e ge d i n t he i r c om pl a i nt. ” Delfi no , 201 1- N MS C- 015, ¶ 12 2 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 3 { 26} D ef

en dant ar gue s that Pl ai nti ff ’ s am en de d com

pla int is le ga lly ins uf fi ci en t t o 4 state a D el

gado c la im

be ca use P la int if

f fa ile d to a lle ge D ef

en dant’ s su

bj ec tiv e int en t, 5 an d be ca

use P la int if

f’ s a lle ga tio ns do not sa tis fy the thr es hol d de te rm ina tio n of 6 egregiousness required for D el gado cl ai m s . De fendant also a rg u es t h at an empl o yer’s 7 failure to take saf

ety m easures does not m eet the D el gado standard
. 8 { 27} D ef

en dant c or

re ct ly state s th at

the abse nc e of

sa fe ty m ea su res ge nera lly

w ill 9 not gi ve rise to a D e l

g ado c l a i m. Se e M

ayv . D CP

M ids tre am , L.P. , 20 10 -NMCA1 0 087, ¶ 1 3 , 1 4 8 N
. M
. 5 9 5 , 2 4 1 P
. 3 d 1 9 3 ( “ T h e ab s e n c e o f s a f e t y m e a s u r e s b y

it se lf 11 de m onstrate s neithe r int en t nor an inh er en t prob ab ili ty of inj ur y , a nd w e be lie ve the 12 Su pr em e Co urt i n D el

gado int en de d m or e than th e dis re gard of pre ve nta tiv e sa fe ty 13 de vic es w he n cont em

pla tin g an exc ep tio n to the W orke rs ’ Co m pe nsa tio n A ct . ”) ; see 14 also Dominguez , 200 5- N MC A -0 50, ¶ 22 ( hol din g th at

a n e m pl oy er ’ s a

ppa lli ng 15 dis re gard

f or sa fe ty r equir em en ts des ign ed to hel p pre ve nt i nj ur y a nd d eath o n th e j ob 1 6 doe s n o t e qu a t e t o a n e m p l o y e r “ s p e c i f

i c a l l y a n d w i l f

u l l y c au s [ i n g ] t h e [ w o rke r] to 17 enter harm ’ s way , fac i n g v i rtually certain serious injury

or death, as contem

plated 18 under D el

gado ”). H owever , w e ar e not convin ced th at Plaint iff is allegin g a general 19 fai lu re b y

Defen da nt to pro vi de saf e eq ui pm en t o r ta ke saf

et y pre cau ti on s.14

1 { 28} Pl a i n t i f

f ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s a r e t h a tD e f e n d a n tw a s n o t i f

i e dt h a tt h e s p ec if

ic 2 equip m en t P la int if

f w as re qui re d to use w as dange ro us an d ha d ne ar ly c au se d se ri ous 3 inj ur ie s to se ve ra l em

plo y ee s; tha t De fe ndant re qui re d Pla int if f to u se the e qui pm en t 4 in spit e of this knowledge and over his objec tions ; and that as a result, Plaintiff w as 5 severely

injure d usin g the equipm ent. U nder Morales , the “ cr iti ca l m ea sur e” f or 6 D el gado claim s is “ whether the em ploy er has, in a specific dangerous circum stance, 7 re qui re d th e [w orke r] to pe rf orm ata sk whe re the e m

plo y er is or

sho uld c le ar ly be 8 aw ar e tha t the re is a subs tanti al li ke lih ood the [ w orke r] w ill suf fe r inj ur y or de ath by 9 perform ing th e task.” Dom ingu ez , 200 5- N MC A -0 50, ¶ 22; se e M

ay , 20 10 -NMCA10 087, ¶ 13. 11 { 29} T ak ing the a lle ga tio ns i n P la int if f’ s am en de d c om

pla int as tr

ue , a nd c onstru ing 12 them in a light m ost favorable to the c o m p l ai nt’ s sufficiency , w e conclude that 13 Plaintiff’ s allegations we re sufficient to state a cla im under D el

gado

. Se e Salazar

I , 14 2005 -N MC A -1 27, ¶

27 ( hol din g th at

“ [the w ] orke r’ s a lle ga tio ns tr ac kin g th e 15 language of D el

gado w er e suf

fi ci en t t o w ith stand w ha t w as tantam ount to a m oti on 16 to dism iss for failure to state a claim ”). 17 { 30} To the extent that D efendant argues that under Morales the Ru le 12( B) (6 ) 18 analy sis for D el

gado c la im s is dif

fe re nt than th e an al y sis ty pic al ly appl ie d to Ru le 19 (1 2) (B )( 6) m oti ons, w e ar e not pe rs ua de d. A s Salazar

I re co gni ze d, N ewMe xic o is1 8 J u d g e P i c k a r dau t hor ed Mo r ales a nd a lso w ro te the dis se nti ng o pin ionin 1 19 Salazar

I
. 15 1 a no ti ce p le ad in g s ta te . Mad ri d v. Vil l. of C

ha ma , 201 2- N MC A -0 71, ¶ 17, 283 P
. 3d 2 8 71. W e do not require “ [district] courts to consid er the m erits of a plaintiff’s 3 allegations when decidin g a m otion to dism iss[.] ” Id

. Rather, we require “ onlythat 4 the plaintiff allege fac ts sufficient to put the defendant on notice of his claim s.” Id

. ; 5 se e Za m ora v. St. V

inc en t H osp. , 20 14 -NMSC -0 35, ¶ ¶ 1, 10, 335 P
. 3d 2 43 6 (rea ffirm ing “Ne w Me xico’ s lo ng st and i ng c om m i tm e nt t o the nontechni cal fa ir notice 7 re qui re m en ts” ); se e als o Ru le 1- 008( A )( 2) (s ta tin g tha t a cl ai m f or r el ie f sha ll co nta in 8 “ a shor t and p la in s ta te m en t of

the c la im

sho win g th at the pl ea de r is e nti tle d to 9 relief” ). 10 { 31} In Salazar

I , 2005-NMC A- 127, ¶ 27, w e held that the notice pleading st andard 11 is ap pli ca

ble in ca se s in vol vin g D el gado claim s, and our hold ing as t o that issu e w as 1 2 n o tr e v e r s e db y Salazar II , 2 0 07-NMSC -019, ¶ 4. W e also note that the special 13 co nc ur

re nc e in Salazar

I pr opos ed

a dopt ing a he ig hte ne d pl ea din g st an dard f or 14 D el gado cl ai m s, ind ic at ing that Morales ha d no t al read y do ne so . Salazar

I , 200 5- 15 N MC A -1 27, ¶

38. Mo re ove r, appl y ing the notic e ple ad ing standard to D el gado 1 16 cl ai m s is c onsi ste nt w iththe pol ic y a nd p hil osop hy

of the A ct as dis cu sse d in Salazar 17 II:16

1 D el

gado e sta bli sh ed a hig h th re shol d of c ulp ab ili ty

that sh oul d 2 el im ina te m an y

c la im s be fo re tr ial. I n li ght of thi s hi gh thr es hol d, 3 injured w orkers m ust be afforded a r easonable tim e to investig ate, 4 includi ng pre-trial discovery , whether they have a sustainable D el

gado 5 cl ai m . I tm a y

n o tb e u n t i l t h e s u m

m a ry j u d g m e n ts t a g e , o r

e v e n t ri al , 6 that a w orker has the answe r. 7 Sala zar II

, 2007-NMS C-019, ¶ 14 (citations o m itted). 8 { 32} Sala zar II

a lso a ddr es se d th e co ncer n e xpr es se d in Sala zar I’s dissent, that 9 em ploy ers m ay be required to litigate in circum stances wher e th e re quisi te D el gado 10 w ill fu lne ss i s no t e sta bli she d inthe c om

pla int : 11 W e acknowledge that under our holdin g here, em ploy ers w ho pay 12 com

pensation benefi ts m ay , in som e case s, also have to pay legal fee s 13 to defend an intentio nal tort action und er D el gado
. Ev en i f th e w o rk er ’s 14 D el

gado claim is ultim ately dism issed, the em ploy er w ill never rec over 15 the c ost

of t ho se le ga l f

ee s. H ow ev er , the A ct doe s no t i nsul at e 16 em

ploy ers fr om

such contin gencies. A s noted abo ve, the [ L] egislature 17 intended to p rotect em ploy ers fr om

negligence actions for accidental 18 inj ur

y , not act io ns for

int en tio na l t ort. A cc or din gly , a n e m plo y er is 19 pr ote ct ed fr om ha vin g to de fe nd neg lig en ce law sui ts, but not a ga ins t the 2 0 ex p en s e o f l aw s u i t s g ro u n d ed i n i n t en t i o n al o r w i l l fu l b eh av i o r. We 21 obse rv e tha t i n so m e ins tanc es , pe rh ap s m ost , pr ude nt e m plo y er s have 22 the ability to anticipate and plan f or the poss ibility of pay ing future 23 attor

ne y f ee s to de fe nd a ga ins t D el gado cl ai m s. [T he w ] orke rs , on the 24 oth er

hand , c anr ar el y

plan f or inj ur ie s in fl ic te d by

the w ill fu l 25 m isc ondu ct

of the ir e m plo y er s. 26 Sala zar II

, 2007-NMS C-019, ¶ 22 (citation om itted). 27 D ef en da nt ’s Go ve rn m en ta l Im m un it y D ef en se 28 { 33} In its m otion to dism iss, D efendant claim s that because it is a statutorilycre ated 29 conservancy

district, it is an ar

m of th e St at e an d enj oy s im m unityunder the Tort17

1 Cl ai m s A ct . Pl ai nti ff ar gue s tha t im m uni ty w as w ai ve d pur suant to NMSA 1978, 2 § 41 -4 -6 (2 007)
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that D ef en dant’ s R

ule 1- 012( B) (6 ) m oti on 3 to d ism iss w as w el l t ak en , a nd o rd er ed that P la int if

f’ s c om pla int be dis m iss ed

w ith 4 pr ej udi ce pur suant t o R ule 1- 012( B) (6 ). Be ca

use the dis tr ic t cour

t did no t r ea chthe 5 iss ue of

gov er nm en ta l i m

m uni ty , w e le av e it fo r de te rm ina tio n onr em an d. 6 CON CLU SION 7 { 34} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e re ve rs e an d r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. 8 { 35} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ________ ____ ___ 10 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 11 WE CO NCUR:
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 13 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e
14

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 15 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e