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: A pr il 9, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 5520 5 GLO RIA MENDOZ A, 6 W orke r- Appe llant, 7 v
. 8 IS LET A RESORT AND CASINO 9 and HU DS ON INSU RA NC E, 10 E m

plo y er /I nsur er -Appe lle es , 11 an d 12 TRIB AL FIR ST, 13 Appellee, 14 an d 15 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO U NIN SU RED 16 EMPLOYE RS’ FUND, 1 7 S t a tu t o ry Th i r dP a rt y. 18 AP PE AL FR OM T HE WORKER S’ C OMP ENS ATION AD MIN ISTR ATION 19 Le on ar d J. P ad ill a, Wo rker s’ C om pe ns at ion Ju dg e1 L ee A nn O rt iz

2 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 3 fo r Appe llant 4 Barn ho us e Keeg an So li m on & W es t LLP 5 Ch ri sti naS
. W es t 6 Los Ran ch os de Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 7 for Appellees1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} G lor iaMe ndoz a (W orke r) , a n e m plo y ee a t I sle ta Pu eblo R es ort and C as ino 4 (I sl et a Ca sin o) , appe al s or de rs of the W orke rs ’ Co m

pe nsa tio n Ju dge ( W CJ ) 5 dis m iss ing he r w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n c om

pla int a nd d en y ing her m oti on t o 6 reconsider a prior order to nam e the proper parties to the ca se. W orker contends that 7 the W CJe rr ed

in dis m iss ing he r co m

pla int on gro unds of

tr iba l so ve re ignim

m uni ty 8 ba se d ona n e xpr es s and une qui voc al waiv er con ta ine d inthe 201 5 I ndi anG am ing 9 Com pact; that even assum ing Isleta Casino e njoy s sovereign im m unity in this case, 10 the de fe nse doe s not

e xte nd t o I sle taCa sin o’ s no n- tr iba l e nti ty ins ur er a nd thir d- party 11 adm ini str at or ; an d tha t the W CJ er re d in de ny ing W orke r’ s m oti on t o r ec onsi de r its 12 or de r gr an tin g le av e to file ase co nd am en de d w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n c om

pla int 13 na m ing I sle taCa sin o’ s in sur er a nd thir d- party

a dm ini str at or

a s part ie s to the c as e. F or 14 th e rea so ns th atfol lo w, we rev ers e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . 15 BACKGRO UND 16 A . Th e N ew M ex ic o Ind ian Ga m in g Com pa ct s and Wor k er s’ C om pe ns at ion 17 { 2} In 1988, the United S tates Congress enacted the Indian Gam ing Regulatory Ac t 18 (I G RA ), P ub. L
. N o. 100- 497, 102 St at . 2467 (1 988) (c odi fi ed at 25 U
. S. C. §§ 2 701- 19 2721 ( 2012 )) , w hic h prov ide s a stat uto ry ba sis fo r In dian tri be s to esta bli sh g am ing2

1 en te rp ris es in Ind ia n C ou nt ry c o n d u ct edpu rs ua nt to st at e-t rib al co m pa ct s. See 25 2 U.S.C. § 2 70 2; 25 U.S.C. § 2 71 0( d) (1 ), inv ali dat ed in part by Se m ino le Tr ibe of F la. 3 v. F lor ida , 517 U. S. 44, 47 (1996). 4 { 3} In 1995 and pursuant to IG RA, the Governor of the State of N ewMexico, G ary 5 Jo hn so n, u ni la te ral ly ent ered in to s tate -t ri ba l ga m ing c om pa ct s w ith cert ai n t rib es . See 6 Sta te e x re l. Clark

v . J ohns on , 199 5- N MS C- 048, ¶ 8, 1 20 N.M. 562, 904 P
. 2d 1 1. 7 Co nc lud ing that i t vi ola te d se paratio n of pow er s un de r the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n 8 fo r G ove rn or

Joh nsonto en te r int o the state -tri ba l gam ing c om pa ct s w ith out 9 le gis la tiv e ap pr ova l, our S upr em e Co urt he ld i n Jo hnso n tha t the 199 5 I ndi anG am ing 10 Co m pa ct s wer e wit ho ut leg al effe ct . Id

. ¶ ¶ 46- 50. 11 { 4} Ba se d on the de ci sio n in Jo hnso n , Chapt er 1 90 , Sect io n 1 of Ne w Mex ic o l aws 12 of 19 97 e st abl i sh e d t he f i r st l e ga l l y e f

f e c t i ve st a t e - t r i ba l gam i ng c om pa c t in New 13 Me xic o. S ec tio n 4( B) (6 ) of the 199 7 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct a ddr es se d w orke rs ’ 14 co m pe nsa tio n f

or tr iba l gam ing e nte rp ri se e m plo y ee s by

statin g th at : 15 [T ] he T ri be sha ll ad opt law s . . . pr ovi din g to al l e m plo y ee s of

aga m ing 16 establishm e nt

e m pl oy m e nt b e ne f i t s, i nc ludin g, at a

m inim um , sick leave, 17 life insurance, paid annual leave and m edical and dental insurance as 18 w el l a s pr ovi din g une m plo ym en t i nsur an ce a nd w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 19 insurance through participation in prog ram s offer ing benefits at least as 20 fav or ab le as t ho se pro vi de d b y co m pa rab le st at e p ro gr am s[ .]3

1 { 5} In 2001 a new an d re vis ed In dian G am ing Co m pa ct w as a dopt ed

. S
. J. Re s. 37, 2 45th L eg . , 1st

S es s. ( N
. M. 200 1)

. T he 20 01 In dian G am ing Co m pa ct inc lud ed a 3 ve rs ionof

S ec tio n 4( B) (6 ), w hic h w as ide nti ca l t o th e 1997 Co m pa ct . 4 { 6} T he I ndi an Gam in g Co m pa ct w as r ev ise d a ga in i n 20 07. S
. J. Re s. 21 , 48th 5 L eg . , 1st

S es s. ( N
. M. 200 7)

. U nde r the 200 7 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct , S ection 6 4( B) (6 ) w as m odi fi ed

to ad d addit ion al ba sic r igh ts tha t tri ba l gam ing e nte rp ri se 7 em plo y ee s m

ust be a ff or ded in the c ont ex t of

w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n and h ow 8 sig na tor

y tri be s m ay

e le ct to part ic ipa te in the S ta te of N ewMe xic o’ s w orke rs ’ 9 com pensation program . S ection 4(B)(6) of the 2007 Indian Gam ing Com pact 10 pr ovi de d th at : 11 [T ] he T ri be sha ll ad opt law s . . . pr ovi din g to al l em plo y ee s of

aga m ing 1 2 establish m en templ o ym en tb en ef i t s , i n cl u d i n g , a ta m inim

um , sick lea

ve, 13 life insurance, paid annual leave and m edi cal and dental insurance as 14 w el l a s pr ovi din g un em plo ym en t i nsur an ce an d w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 15 insurance through participation in program s offer ing benefits at lea st as 16 favor ab le a s th ose pr ovi de d by c om para ble state pr ogr am s, and which 17 prog

ram s sh all

aff ord the e m

plo ye es due pr oc es s of

lawand sha ll 18 inc lud

e an ef fe ct iv e m ea ns f

or a n e m plo ye e to a ppe al a n ad

ve rse 19 de te rm ina tio n bythe ins ure r to an i m part ial for um, suc h as (

but not 20 lim ite d to

) the Tr ibe ’s tri bal co urt , wh ic h appe al shal l be dec ide d in a 21 tim el

y m anne r an d in an a dm ini strati ve or j udi ci al p ro ceed ing and as 22 to w hich no defense of tribal sovereign im munity wou l d b e a va ilabl e; 23 and prov ide d th at to fu lfi ll thi s re qui re m en t the T

rib e m aye le ct

to 24 part ic ipa te in t he Sta te ’s pro gram upo n e xe cu tio n of

an a ppro pri ate 25 agre em en t w ith the Sta te [.] 26 (Em ph as is ad de d.)4

1 { 7} In201 5 th e curr en t ve rs ionof the I ndi anG am ing Co m

pa ct w as a dopt ed

. S
. J. 2 Re s. 19, 52n d L eg . , 1st Sess. ( N
. M. 201 5)

. W ithr ev isi ons em pha siz ed be low , the 3 2015 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct r e- ad opt ed

in its e nti re ty

the 200 7 a m en dm en t t o 4 Se ct ion4( B) (6 ). S ec tio n 4( B) (6 ) of the 201 5 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct pr ovi de s: 5 [T]he Trib e sh al l ad op t l aws . . . re qui rin g th e Tr ibe, thr ough it s G am ing 6 E

nte rpr ise or thro ugh a third -p art y ent ity , to p rov ide to all em

ploy ees 7 of

the G am ing E nte rp ri se e m plo y m en t be ne fi ts, incl udi ng, a t a 8 m in im

um , si cklea ve , li fe i ns ur an ce, pai d annual le av e or p aid

ti m e off 9 an d m edic al a nd d en ta l i nsur an ce a s w el l a s pr ovi din g un em plo ym en t 10 ins ur an ce a nd w orkers ’ co m pe nsa tio n in sur an ce thr oughpart ic ipa tio n 11 in p ro gr am s of

fe ri ng b en ef

its a t l ea st a s f

av or ab le as tho se pr ovi de d by 12 co m

pa rabl e St at e pr ogr am s, a nd w hic h pr ogr am s sh al l a ff or d th e 13 em

plo y ee s du e pr oc es s of law an d shal l inc lud e an ef fe ct ive m eans f

or 14 an em

ploy ee to appeal an a dvers e d et erm ination by the insurer to an 1 5 i m

p a rt i a l f o r u m , s u c h a s ( b u tn o t

l i m i t e dt o ) t h e T r i b e ’ s T r i b a l Co ur t, 16 which appeal shall be decided in a tim ely m an n er and in an 17 adm ini str at ive or j udi ci al pr oc ee din g and a s to w hic h no de fe nse of 18 tr iba l so ve re ignim m uni ty w oul d be a va ila

ble ; an d provi de d th at

to 1 9 fu l fi l l t h i s re qu i re m en t t h e Tri b e m ay el ec t t o p ar t i ci p at e in t h e S t at e’s 20 pr og ram

up on ex ecu ti on of a n app ro pr ia te ag reem en t wi th th e St at e[.] 21 (Em phases added.) T he Pueblo of Isleta has been a signato ry to the 201 5 Indian 22 Gam in g Com

pa ct si nc e Ju ly 28 , 20 15
. See I ndi anG am ing , 80 F ed

. Re g. 44, 992- 01 23 (July 28, 2015). 24 B. P ar ti es in In te re st 25 { 8} W orke r, the inj ur ed w orke r an d co m pla inant s ee kin g w ork in

j ur y be ne fi ts f ro m 26 he r em

plo y er in thi s c as e, is em

plo y ed by a nd w orks a s ac ust odi al porter fo r Is le ta 27 Ca sin o. I sle ta Cas in o is aCl as s I II tr iba l gam ing e nte rp ri se loc at ed in the S ta te of5

1 N e wM e x i c o t h a ti s w h o l l y o w n e d a n d o p e r a t e d b y t h e P u e b l o o f I s l e t a . A tt h e t i me 2 of W orker’ s work inj ury , I sleta Casino m aintained worker s’ com pensation insurance 3 issued b y

Hud s on Insurance Com pany (H udso n), a

De laware c orporation. Tr ibal 4 Fi rs t, w hic h f

unc tio ne d a s th e thi rd -p ar ty ad m ini str at or

of I sle taCa sin o’ s w orke rs ’ 5 com pensation insurance policy at the tim e of W orker’ s injury , is a pr ogram 6 adm inistered by

the California c orporation, Alliant Specialty Insurance Service s, I nc. 7 Finally , F irst Na tions Com pensation Plan, wa s a com pany that provid ed Indian tribes 8 w ithw orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n c ove ra ge unt il 2009 . I n 20 09, F ir st N at ion s 9 Com pensation Plan ce ased pay ing cl ai m s after being pu lled into bankruptcy 10 pr oc ee din gs i nvol vin g ar el at ed c om pany w hose pr inc ipa ls w er e inv es tig at ed f or 11 op erat in g a “ Po nz i s ch em e” an d wer e co nv ic te d o n c ha rg es of m ai l fr au d. 12 C. Work er’s Work Injur y and C laim for Work Injur y Benef

its 13 { 9} O n Augus t 24, 2015 , W orke r w as inj ur ed a t w ork w hil e push ing c ha ir s duri ng 14 her m idnig ht shift at Isleta Casino. W orker suffer ed a to rn m eniscus in her right knee. 15 W orker filed a notice of accident form with Isleta Casino, wa s sent to an urgent care 16 cl ini c by

I sle taCa sin o, a nd saw a doc tor al l wi thi n tw en ty -f our hour s of her

a cc ide nt. 17 { 10} On Se ptem

ber 11, 2015, W orker re cei v ed a letter signed b y Er ica Br own, an 18 insurance adj uster for T ribal First (the Tr ibal First adj uster), which stated that T ribal6

1 Fi rs t wou ld be ha ndling he r cl ai m f or w ork in j ur y be ne fi ts o n be ha lf

of I sle ta 2 C a s i n o . T h e l e t t e r c o n t i n u e dt h a t“[ p ]e r I s l e t aR e s o rt& C a s i n o w o rki n j u ry p r o g r a m, 3 cl ai m s are to be r ep orte d w ith in 2 4 ho ur s. ” T he le tte r inc or re ct ly as se rt ed , “ Si nc e y ou 4 d i dn o tr e p o rtyo u r

c l a i m t i me l y p e r

I s l e t aR e s o rt& C a s i n o [ ’s ] w o rki n j u ry p r o g r a m, 5 y our claim

is denied.” T he letter c onclud ed that if W orker disagreed w ith Tribal 6 First’ s decision, she was r equired to subm it a written request for appeal with Tr ibal 7 First no later than thirt y d ays af t er the date of the letter deny ing her work inj ury 8 be ne fi ts. 9 { 11} W orke r re spon de d by f iling a w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n c om

pla int w iththe 10 W orke rs ’ Co m

pe nsa tio n A dm ini str at ion( W CA ), na m ing Is le ta Ca sin o an d th e Fo od 11 Industry

Self Insurance Fund of Ne w Mexico (FI SIF ) as parties to the case. W orker 12 the n am ended her com plaint to add as parties T ribal First and the U ninsu red 13 E m plo y er s F und of

N ewMe xic o ( U E F)

. Whil e the ca se w as pe ndi ng, a ce rt if ic at e of 14 w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n ins ur an ce w as fi le d w iththe W CA , ide nti fy ing H udso n a s th e 1 5 w o rk e r s ’ c o m

p e n s a t i o n l i ab i l i t y i n s u r a n c e c a rr i e r f o r I s l e t a C a s i n o a t t h e t im e of 16 W orke r’ s a cc ide nt. 17 { 12} A m ed ia tio n c onf er en ce w as the n he ld, but

the part ie s we re not

able to re sol ve 18 the m atter. Included in the m ediator’ s observation s and recom m endations we re that 19 the W CA had jurisdiction to adj udicate W orker’ s case beca use Isleta Pueblo wa ived7

1 tr iba l so ve re ignim

m uni ty , pur suant t o S ec tio n 4(B) (6 ) of the 201 5 I ndi anG am ing 2 Com pact, and that “ [t ] he be ha vio r of the T ri ba l F ir st a dj ust er r ai se s aque sti on o f 3 w he the r the re is ane nte rp ris e to ta ke tr ibe s’ m one y but pay no c la im s. . . . S uc h a 4 co ur se of

be ha vio r, e ve n if

tr ue , is be y ond the sco pe of th e W CA
. I t w oul d no t be 5 be y on d t he sco pe of app el la te co ur ts , were t he cas e to go th atfar.” 6 { 13} Co unse l the n e nte re d an a ppe ar an ce on b eh al f of

I sle ta Ca sin o an d T ri ba l F ir st 7 in the c as e fo r the lim ite d pur pose of co nte sti ng the subj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n of the 8 W CAto ad

j udi cate W orke r’ s c la im an d fil ed a Rul e 1- 012( B) (1 ) N MR A m oti on t o 9 dis m iss on M ar ch2, 201 6, as se rting tr iba l so ve re ignim m uni ty . A tta ch ed

to the 10 m oti on w er e se le ct ed pa ge s f ro m a n in suranc e pol ic y

pr oduc ed

by F ir st N at ion s 11 Co m pe nsa tio n P lan purp orte d by c ouns el f or Is le taCa sin o, H udso n, a nd T ri ba l F ir st 12 to be the Pueblo’s w orkers’ com p en sation ordi nance, and which counsel argued 13 co nf er re d onI sle taP ue blo ex cl usi ve j ur isd ic tio n ove r cl ai m s m ad e unde r its w orke rs ’ 14 co m pe nsatio n in sur an ce polic y wit h Hu ds on . Sub se qu en t p ro ceedings b ro ught to lig ht 15 that the purpo rted w orkers’ com pensation ordinance wa s not in fac t tribal law in force 1 6 o r e f f e c tf o r t h e P u e b l o a tt h e t i me o f Wo rk e r ’s wo rki n

ju ry. 17 { 14} The W CJ then entered an order granting an un oppo sed m otion filed by W orker 1 8 re que s t i n g l e a v e t o f

i l e as e c o n da m e n d e dc o m p l a i n ta d d i n g H u d s o n a s ap a rt y a nd 19 dism issin g FISI F. How ever, without ex p l anation, the order a lso dis m issed Tribal8

1 First. W orker m oved for reconsideration of t he W CJ’ s order, requesting that Tr ibal 2 First rem ain a party

in the case. 3 { 15} T he W CJla te r iss ue d or de rs , gr an tin g th e m oti on t o di sm iss on g roun ds of 4 sove re ignim

m uni ty , r el y ing on A nto nio v . I nn o f the M ountain G ods R es ort

& 5 Ca sin o , 201 0- N MC A -0 77, 148 N
. M. 858 , 242 P
. 3d 4 25, a nd s um m ar ily de ny ing the 6 m oti on f

or r ec on si de ratio n a s m oot . A s ar es ult , W orke r’ s w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 7 ca se w as dis m iss ed

w ithpr ej udi ce . T his appe al f oll ow ed

. 8 DISC US SION 9 { 16} W orke r ra ise s thr ee iss ue s onappe al : (1 ) tha t the W CJe rr ed in gr an tin g I sle ta 10 Casino’ s m otion to dism iss for lack of s ubjec t m atter jurisdiction on grounds of tribal 11 sove re ignim

m uni ty ; ( 2) that the de fe nse of tr iba l so ve re ignim

m uni ty d o es not e xte nd 12 to Is le ta Ca sin o’ s non- tr iba l w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n in sur er , H udso n, or thi rd -p ar ty 13 adm ini str at or , T ri ba l F ir st; a nd ( 3) that the W CJe rr ed in de ny in g he r m oti on t o 14 re co nsi de r its or de r gr an tin g he r le av e to f ile ase co nd am en de d w orke rs ’ 15 co m pe ns at io n c om

pl ai nt na m in g Hu ds on an d Tri ba l Fi rs t as pa rti es to th e cas e. 16 I. The WCJ Erred in Grantin g Isleta Casino’s Motion to Dism iss for Lack 17 of

S ub je ctM at te r Ju ri sd ic ti on 18 { 17} W orker fir st cont e nd s tha t S ection 4(B)(6) of the 2015 Indian Gam ing Com pact 19 co nta ins an ex pr es s an d une qui voc al w ai ve r of sove re ignim m uni ty . W orke r ur ge s us 20 to focus o u r at t en tion to the language of Section 4(B)( 6) added in 200 7 and re-9

1 ad opt ed

in the 201 5 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct pr ov id in g th at

e m plo y ee s of

I sle ta 2 P ue bl o’ s gam i ng e nt e r pr i se s “ sh a l l [ be ] a f

f or d[ e d]

. . . a n i m

part i a l f or um , s uc h as 3 (b ut n ot l im ite d to ) the T ri be ’ s tr ibal co urt, ” an d aj udi ci al or a dm ini str at ive 4 pr oc ee din g f

or a ppe al s f ro m a dve rs e w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n de te rm ina tio ns i n 5 “ w hic h no de fe nse of

tr iba l so ve re ignim

m uni ty w oul d be av ai la ble[

. ] ” (E m pha sis 6 om itt ed

. ) T his la ng ua ge , W orke r ar gue s, de m onstrate s I sle taP ue blo ’ s in te nt and 7 ag re em en t tha t e ith er it or its ga m ing en te rp ri se (s ) w ai ve tr iba l so ve re ignim m uni ty 8 in c a s e s l i k e h e r s—whic h c ha lle nge a n a dve rs e w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n de te rm ina tio n 9 by Isleta Ca sino’s w orkers’ com pensation insurer/third-party adm inistrator. 10 { 18} Is le taCa sin o intur n r el ie s onthi s C ourt’ s op ini ons in A nto nio , 20 10 -NMCA11 077; M

art ine z v. Ci ties of G old

Ca sin o , 2009 -N MC A -0 87, 146 N
. M. 735 , 215 P
. 3d 12 44; a nd o ur

non -p re ce de nti al opi nio n in P en a v . I nn of t he M ountain G ods R es ort

& 13 Ca sin o , N o. A -1 -CA -2 9799 , m em . op. ( N
. M. Ct
. App. Jan. 31, 201 1) ( non14 pr ec ed en tia l) , to ar gue that “ N ewMe xic o c ourts ha ve c onsi ste ntl y appl ie d th e 15 doc tr ine of tr iba l sove re ign im m uni ty to dis m iss w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n c la im s f

ro m 16 the j ur isd ic tio n of

state c ourts. ” Is le ta Cas ino al so c ont en ds tha t the langua ge of 17 Se ct ion 4( B) (6 ) of the 2015 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct doe s no t c onst itu te a n e xpr es s 18 and unequ ivocal waiver of sovereign imm

unity . R ather, Isleta Ca sino argues th at 19 Se ct ion4( B) (6 ) de sc ri be s ac ontra ct ua l ob lig at ion , e nf

or ce ab le onl y by

the part ie s to10

1 the c om

pa ct , r equir ing that I sle taP ue blo sha ll ad opt law s tha t es ta bli sh a pr oc es s f or 2 re sol vin g it s gam ing e nte rp ri se e m plo y ee s’ w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n c la im s. 3 A. Stand ard of R eview 4 { 19} Inr ev ie w ing a n a ppe al f ro m an or de r gr an tin g or de ny ing a m oti on t o di sm iss 5 fo r la ck

of j ur isd ic tio n ba se d ontr ibal so ve rei gn i m m uni ty , r ev ie wis de nov o. 6 G all egos v. P ue blo of T es uque , 2002 -N MS C- 012, ¶ 6, 132 N
. M. 207 , 46 P
. 3d 6 68; 7 see S anchez v. Sant a Ana Golf Club, Inc. , 2005 -N MC A -0 03, ¶ 4, 136 N
. M. 682 , 104 8 P. 3d 5 48. 9 B. Se ct ion 4( B) (6 ) of th e 2015 In di an Ga m in g C om pa ct C on ta in s an Ex pr es s 10 and U nequ ivocal Wa iver of Sovere ign Im m unity 11 { 20} “ In dia

n tr ibe s a re ‘ dom es tic de pe nde nt n at io ns ’ th atex erci se in he ren t s ov ere ign 12 au t hority

over their m em

bers and territories. ” G all egos , 2002-NMS C-012, ¶ 7 13 (i nte rnal quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he se dom es tic de pe nde nt n at ion s 14 “ ha ve lon g be en reco gn iz ed a s po sse ssi ng the c om

m on- lawim

m uni ty f ro m sui t 15 traditionallyenj oy ed by sovereign po wers.” Sant a Clara Pueblo v. M artin ez , 436 16 U
. S. 49, 58 ( 1978 ); see Mic hi ga n v . Bay Mi ll

s In di an Cmty ., ___

U
. S. ___ , ___ , 134 17 S. Ct. 2024 , 2030 (2014) (“ Am ong th e core aspects of so vereignty that [Indian] tribes 18 poss es s . . . is the co m m on- law im

m uni ty fr om sui t[
. ] ” (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks and 19 ci ta tio n om itt ed )) ; H

off m an v. Sandia R es ort

& Ca sin o , 2010 -N MC A -0 34, ¶ 6, 14811

1 N. M. 222, 232 P. 3d 901 (stating that our Suprem e Court has long “ recognize[d] tribal 2 sovereign imm

unityas a legitim ate legal doctrine of signi ficant historical pedigree”). 3 { 21} Bu t t rib al soverei gn imm un it y is no t ab so lu te . Se e G all egos , 200 2- N MS C- 012, 4 ¶ 7. A rt ic le I , S ec tio n 8 o f the U nit ed S tates Co ns tituti on c onf er s onCo ngr es s “ the 5 ult im at e au tho ri ty

ove r In dian a ff

ai rs , ” w hic h in cl ude s th e ab ili ty to “ expres sly 6 autho r i z e s ui t s a ga i ns t

I nd i an tr i be s thr ough legislation .” G all egos , 200 2- N MS C- 012, 7 ¶ 7; see A nto nio , 201 0- N MC A -0 77, ¶ 10 ( quot ing Ki ow a T

rib e of Ok

la. v . M fg. 8 Techs, Inc. , 523 U
. S. 751 , 756 ( 1998 ) fo r the proposit ionthat “ [t ] ri ba l i m m uni ty is 9 a m atte r of

f ed er al lawa nd is no t su bject t o di m inu tio n by the state s” ( al te ratio n 10 om itted)). Morever, a tribe is also free to waive its sovereign im m unity ; however, 11 such a wa iver m

ust be “ express and unequ ivocal.” R & R D el i, I nc . v . San ta A na Star 12 Ca sin o , 2006-NMC A- 020, ¶ 10, 139 N. M. 85, 128 P. 3d 513. “ Beca use a tribe need 13 not w ai ve im m uni ty a t a ll, it is fr ee to pr es cr ibe the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o n w hic h it 14 consents to be sued, and the m anner in which the suit shall b e con ducted.” Id

. 15 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). E nti tie s unde r tr iba l co ntr ol ar e al so 16 ex te nd edso ve rei gn imm u n i t y to th e sa m e ex te nt as t he tri be it se lf. Sanchez , 200 5- 17 N MC A -0 03, ¶

6. 18 { 22} State-t ri b al com pacts are contracts, subj ect to the rules of contrac t 19 in te rp ret at io n. S

e e G all eg os , 2002- N MS C- 012, ¶ 30. A s ar es ult , ac ourt’ s du ty in12

1 int er pr et ing a nd c onstru ing a state -tri ba l gam ing c om pa ct is to a sc er

ta in the 2 co m pa ct in g partie s’ int en t, a nd a bse nt am big uity , appl y

the pla in m eanin g of

the 3 la ng ua ge em

pl oyed i n t he co m

pa ct . Se e id. W e have theref ore consistentlydeclined 4 to ho ld th ata tr ib e wai ve s s ov erei gn imm un it y by im pl ic at io n. Se e A nto nio , 201 0- 5 N MC A -0 77; M

ar t i nez , 20 09 -NMCA-087 ; Sanchez , 200 5- N MC A -0 03; se e als o Pen a , 6 N o. A -1 -C A -2 9799 , m em . op. a t *1

. 7 { 23} In Sanchez , an em ploy ee of Santa Ana Golf Club, Inc., an entity wholly owned 8 an d op er at ed

by S an taA naP ue blo , sue d th e gol f cl ub f or w ro ngf ul d isc harg e an d 9 de fam at iona ft er be ing fi re d upon inf orm ing he r em

plo y er that sh e ha d be ente ste d f

or 10 H ep at iti s C —f

or w hic h sh e te ste d ne ga tiv e. 2005 -N MC A -0 03, ¶¶ 1- 2. T he gol f cl ub 11 raised tribal sovereign im m unityin a m otion to d i s m i s s for lack of subject m atter 12 juri sd ic ti on un de r Ru le 1-0 12 (B)( 1) , whi ch th e d is tri ctco ur t g ran te d. Sanchez , 200 5- 13 NMC A- 003, ¶ 2. On appeal, the e m ploy ee ar gued that Santa Ana P ueblo’s “ volu ntary 14 participation in Ne w Mexico’ s worker s’ com pensation program ” served as a wa iver 15 of so ve rei gn imm

un it y . Id

. ¶ 17. Re as oni ng tha t the e m plo y ee ’ s c la im

r el ie d ona 16 theory of w aiver by

im plication, this Court held that m ere “ ac t ivities su ch as 17 participation in th e state’ s worker s’ com pensation program ” d o not establish a clear 18 an d u ne qu iv oc al waiv er o f tr ib al so ve rei gn imm un it y . Se e id. ¶

¶ 7, 18.13

1 { 24} T his Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n Sanchezw as e xte nde d inour de ci sio n in Martinez , in 2 w hic h an in

j ur ed e m plo y ee of the Ci tie s of

G old Ca sin o, a n enti ty w hol ly

ow ne d and 3 ope rate d by Po

joaq ue P ue blo , w as a lle ge dly te rm ina te d inr et al ia tio n f or f ili ng a 4 wor ke rs ’ co m

pe ns at io n c la im

. Martinez , 2009 -N MC A -0 87, ¶ 1, 3. Inr es pons e to the 5 em plo y ee ’ s f

ili ng o f a w or ke rs ’ co m

pe nsa tio n c la im , the c as ino f ile d am oti on t o 6 di sm is s, whi ch in cl ud edth e d efen se of t rib al so ve rei gn imm un it y . Id

. ¶ ¶ 10- 11. T he 7 W CJ de ni edth e cas in o’s m ot io n. Id

. ¶¶ 15-16. On appeal, the em ploy ee argued that 8 the defense of sove re i gn imm unitywa s unavailable to th e tribe beca use it had 9 pu rch as ed a wor ke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n i ns ur an ce p ol ic y . Id

. ¶ 27. F oll ow ing our

log ic 10 in Sanchez , w e re ve rs ed the W CJ , hol din g th at

by m er el y pu rcha sin g w orke rs ’ 11 co m pe nsa tio n ins ur an ce , the ca sin o did not “ im pli ci tly ” w ai ve sove re ig n im m uni ty 12 requiring it “ to surrender to state court j urisdictio n.” Martinez , 2009 -N MC A -0 87, 13 ¶ 27. 14 { 25} Martinezalso addressed the issue of whether the 2001 Indian Gam ing Com pact 15 co nt ai ne d a waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y . Id

. ¶ 2 6
. In suppo rt of his claim that 16 Se ct ion4( B) (6 ) of

the 200 1 I ndi an G am ing Co m pa ct e ff ec te d aw ai ve r of

sov er ei gn 17 im m uni ty in w orke rs ’ c om

pe ns at ion cl ai m s, the e m plo y ee r ef

er re d to the langua ge 18 re qui ri ng tri ba l gam ing e nte rp ri se e m plo y ee s be a ff

or de d w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n 19 benefits “ at least as favorable as those provided by com parable state program s.” Id

.14

1 (i nte rn al quota ti on m ar ks o m itt ed ). W e re as one d th at to fi nd a w ai ve r of

sov er ei gn 2 im m uni ty f ro m thi s langua ge w oul d a lso r equir e thi s C ourt t o im pli ci tly f ind that the 3 cas in o a gr ee d t o s u b mi t t o t he juri sd ic ti on of t he W CA. See id. I n su ppor t of our 4 co nc lus ion , w e poin te d out that the co m pa ct langua ge ci te d by

the e m plo y ee did

not 5 ind ic at e “ w he re j ur isd ic tio n m igh t l ie w he n an d if aw orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n c la im

is 6 fil edby an em

pl oyee” of th e cas in o. Id

. A cc or din gly , w e he ld tha t S ec tio n 4( B) (6 ) of 7 the 200 1 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct did not c ont ai n aw ai ve r of t rib al sov er ei gn 8 imm un it y . Se e id. 9 { 26} Si m ilarl y , in A nto nio , a n e m plo y ee of S ki Apa ch e, a n en tity

w hol ly ow ne d and 10 ope rate d by

the Me sc al er o Apa ch e T ri be , w as inj ur ed in the c our se of

his e m plo ym en t 11 as asno w m ak er . 201 0- N MC A -0 77, ¶ 2. A ft er av ai lin g him se lf of the tr ibe ’ s w orke rs ’ 1 2 co m p en s at i o n p ro g ra m , a d m i n i s t er ed b y Tr i b al Fi rs t , t h e e m p l o yee s t i l l b el i ev ed “ t hat 13 he was e nt it le d t o a dd it io na l co m pe ns at io n” an d fi le d a co m pl ai nt wit h t he W CA. Id

. 14 ¶ 3. The W CJ dism is s ed t h e em ploy ee’ s com

plaint for lack of subjec t m atter 15 juri sd ic ti on . Id

. ¶ 4. On appe al , the e m

plo y ee r ai se d th e sa m e ar gum en t a s th e 16 em plo y ee in Martinez

—that Section 4(B)( 6) of the 2 0 0 1 Indian Gam ing Com pact 17 w ai ve d th e tr ibe ’ s so vere ignim m uni ty w ithr es pe ct

to w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n 1 8 d i s p u t e s t h r o u g h i t s l a n g u a g e r e qu i r i n g t h a t t h e t r i b e p r o v i d e i t s e m p l oy ee s w ith 19 w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts “ at

le as t a s f

av or ab le a s t ho se pr ovi de d by15

1 com parabl e s t at e program s[.] ” A nto nio , 201 0- N MC A -0 77, ¶ 15. Re ly ing on o ur 2 re as oni ng i n Sancheza nd Martinez , w e re af fi rm ed tha t Se ct ion 4( B) (6 ) of the 200 1 3 In di an Gam in g C om

pa ctdo es no t ef

fect a waiv er o f tri ba l s ov erei gn imm un it y . See 4 A nto nio , 2010 -N MC A -0 77, ¶¶ 15, 17, 20; se e als o P en a , N o . A

- 1

- C A

- 2 9 7 9 9 , me m. 5 op. ¶ 4 (sam e). 6 { 27} Sanchez , Martinez , a nd A nto nio do not control. In those cases, the em ploy ees 7 al l r el ie d up on the or ie s of w aive r of

tr iba l so ve re ignim

m uni ty by 8 im pli catio n—whe the r by v oluntary part ic ipa tio n inW CApr oc ee din gs, pur ch as ing 9 worker s’ com

pensation insurance, o r under Sec tion 4 (B)( 6) of the 2001 Indi an 10 Gam in g C om

pa ct . 11 { 28} In c o n t r a s t , h e r e W o rk e r ’ s a r g u m e n t r e l i e s o n S e c t i o n 4 ( B ) ( 6 ) o f t h e 2015 1 2 In d i an Ga m i n g Co m

p ac t , wh i ch ex p re s s l y p ro v i d es t h at empl o yees o f I s l et a P u eb l o ’s 13 ga m ing e nte rp ri se s “ sha ll [b e] a ff or d[ ed ]
. . . a n impa rt ia l f or um suc h a s ( but

not 14 lim ite d to ) the T ri be ’ s tr iba l c ourt” an d a judic ia l or a dm ini str at ive pr oc ee din g f or 15 ap pe al s f

ro m a dve rs e w orke rs ’ co m

pe nsa tio n de te rm ina tio ns i n “ w hic h no de fe nse of 16 tr iba l so v e r e i gn i m

m uni ty w oul d be a va ila

ble [. ] ” W orke r as se rt s th is i s an e xpr es s and 17 unequi vocal wa iver o f tribal sovereign imm unity . T his langu age m aterially changed 18 th e subs tanc e an d op er at ionof the c om pa ct a nd i t w as not

in ef fe ct in Martinez or 19 A nto nio , w hic h c onstru ed S ec tio n 4( B) (6 ) of

the 2001 I ndi anG am ing Co m pa ct .16

1 T he re fo re , the que sti on o f w he the r Se ct ion4(B )( 6) of the 201 5 I ndi anG am ing 2 Co m pa ct c ont ai ns ane xpr es s and une qui voc al w ai ve r of tr iba l so ve re ignim

m uni ty 3 is on e of

fir st im pr es si on . Thu s, Sanchez , Martinez , a nd A nto nio do n ot g ove rnin thi s 4 ca se , a nd w e pr oc ee d to a na ly ze the 201 5 C om pa ct langua ge to d et er

m ine w he the r it 5 c o n s t i tu t e s a n e x p r e s s a n du n e qu i v o c a l wa i v e r o f t r i b a l s o v e r e i g n i mm

u n i t y. 6 { 29} T he re is no i ss ue ab out w he the r Se ct ion4( B) (6 ) of the 201 5 I ndi anG am ing 7 Co m pa ct is am big uous on its fa ce . W e the re fo re pr oc ee d to co nstru e the or din ar y a nd 8 us ua l m ean in g o f th e la ng ua ge em pl oyed in th e 2 01 5 C om

pa ct . See Co noc oPhil lip s 9 Co

. v . L

yo ns , 201 3- N MS C- 009, ¶ 23, 299 P
. 3d 8 44 ( hol din g that w he re a co ntr ac t i s 10 unam bigu ous, “ the words of the cont ract are to be given their ordinary and usual 11 m ea nin g” (al te rat io n, i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d cit at ion omitt ed ))

. S ec tio n 4( B) (6 ) 12 of the 2015 In dian Gam ing Co m pa ct se ts f orth an e xpr es s and une qui voc al w ai ve r of 13 sov er ei gn imm

unity . S ection 4(B)(6) of the 2015 Com pact expressly

states that 14 “ ap pe al [s ] ” fr om

“ adve rs e [w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n] dete rm ina tio n[ s] ” by I sle ta 15 Cas in o’s i ns ur er “ sh al l be de ci de d

. . . i n an ad m in is tra ti ve or jud ic ia l pr oc eed in g . . 1 6 . a s t o wh i ch n o d ef

en s e o f t ri b al s o v er ei g n i m m u n i t y wo u l db e a v ai l ab l e[ .]” 17 { 30} Is le taCa sin o de nie s tha t its w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n pr ogr am

doe s no t c om

ply 18 with Sec tion 4(B)( 6), and further, assum ing Isleta Pueblo has failed to adopt laws as 19 required by

the com pact, Isleta Ca sino argues th at such a fa ilure can only be rem edied17

1 by the State of Ne w Me xico, as a party to the contract. The W CJ failed to hear 2 ev id en ce o r m ak e an y

fin d i n g s o f f

a c t o n wh et he r Is le ta Pu eb lo ha s ad op te d l aws 3 re qui ri ng i t t o part ic ipa te in a w or ke rs ’ co m pe nsa tio n pr ogr am

a s m an da te d by 4 Se ct ion4( B) (6 ). T he re fo re , notw ith standi ng tha t Se ct ion 4( B) (6 ) co nta ins a n e xpr es s 5 w ai ve r of

sov er ei gn i m

m uni ty , w e ar e not

able to de te rm ine , on the r ec or d be fo re us, 6 w he the r the w aiver

is ope rativ e. U nde r the se c ir cu m stanc es , w e w oul d or din ar ily 7 re m an d th e ca se dir ec tin g th e W CJto he ar a nd c onsi de r re le vant e vid en ce an d m ak e 8 fin di ng s o f fact on th e q ue st io n o f imm un it y . Se e South v. L uja n , 201 4- N MC A -1 09, 9 ¶ 11 , 3 36 P. 3d 1 000 (s ta tin g th at w he re de te rm ina tio n of

j ur isd ic tio n de pe nds on 10 fa ct ua l qu es tio ns tha t are ina de qua te ly de ve lop ed

f or ap pe al , w e m ay

r em an d th e ca se 11 to the dis tr ic t cou rt to m ak e fi ndi ngs of f ac t and c onc lus ion s of

law ). I t i s no t 12 ne ce ssary

f or us t o do so in this c as e, be ca use e ve n if

I sle taCa sin o ha s so ve re ign 13 im m uni ty , W orke r ha s ar igh t t o purs ue her w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n c la im

dir ec tly 14 against Hudson and its third-party adm inistrator, Tr ibal First. H owever , if W orker 15 still wishes to proceed agains t Isleta Ca sino in addition to the insu rers, then the W CJ 16 shou ld h ear ev ide nc e an d m ak e fi ndi ngs (and a llo w d is cove ry , if he de em s it 17 ad vi sabl e) o n t he imm un it y qu es ti on .18

1 II. Wor k er M ay P ur su e He r Wor k er s’ C om pe ns at ion C lai m A gai ns t 2 Hu d so n a n d T r i b al F i r st , N ot wit h st an d i n g Is l e t a C as i n o’ s E n t i t l e m ent 3 To Tribal Sovere ign Im m unity 4 { 31} W orke r ne xt arg ue s th at e ve n if thi s C ourt “ fi nds tha t Em

plo y er [I sle taCa sin o] 5 may d e f

e n dt h i s wo rk e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m o n t h e b a s i s o f s o v e r e i g n i mm

u n i t y, 6
. . . [ the n] suc h a def

en se doe s no t e xte nd t o no n- tr iba l e nti tie s H udso n I nsur an ce a nd 7 T ri ba l Fir st. ” Insup port of he r ar gum en t, W orke r re lie s onthe 201 2 O klahom a St at e 8 Suprem e Court case W altrip v. O

sage M ill ion D ollar E lm Ca sin o , 201 2 O K 65, 290 9 P. 3d 7 41. 10 { 32} Although counsel for Isleta Ca sino , Hu d s on, and Tr ibal First concede that 11 ne ith er Huds on n or

T ri ba l F ir st are tr iba l e nti tie s e nti tle d to c la im sov er ei gn 12 im m uni ty , c ouns el c on te nds tha t I sle taP ue blo ’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty e ff ec tiv el y 13 ex te nds to the ins ur er s of it s tr iba l gam ing e nte rp ri se s. Thi s ar gum en t, r el ie s ona 14 sta te m en t i n G all egos , 2 0 0 2

- N M S C

- 0 1 2 , ¶ ¶ 4 2

- 4 8 , t h a t “N e w M e x i c o c o ur ts h av e 15 specifically

fo u n d [, under Rule 1-019 NMRA ,] that tribal enterprises ar e 16 ind isp en sa

ble parti es in sui ts b ro ught a ga ins t tri ba l i nsur er s and tha t i nde pe nde nt 17 cl ai m s c an not

be sus ta ine d a ga ins t a

tr iba l i nsur er . ” A s a r es ul t, I sle taCa sin o and 18 Hudson assert that adoptio n of Worker ’ s argum ent under W altrip “ dir ec tly

c onf lic ts 19 wit h New M ex ic o l aw.”19

1 A. G

all egos D oe s N ot A pp ly t o T hi s C ase 2 { 33} In G all egos , avis ito r to the Cam el Ro ck G am ing Ce nte r, a n e nti ty w hol ly 3 owned and operated by the Pueblo of Tesuqu e (Tesuque), was inj ured when she w as 4 knoc ke d do w n by a garb ag e co nta ine r tha t bl ewint o he r be ca use of asud de n gu st o f 5 wind. 2002-NMS C-012, ¶ 3. At the tim e o f th e v isitor’s inj ury , the gam ing center had 6 an in su ran c e p o li cy

in effe ctwit h Zu ric h Am eri can Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny. Id

. T he 7 vis ito r the re af

te r fi le d ac om

m on l awt o r

t a c tio n a ga ins t T es uque a nd o the r de fe ndants 8 se ek in g d am ag es . Id

. ¶ 4. The district c ourt dism issed the c ase on the basis of tribal 9 so ve rei gn imm

un it y . Id

. T he vis ito r pr oc ee de d to f ile ase parate law sui t aga ins t the 10 ga m ing c en te r’ s in sure r, Z ur ic h and o the r de fe ndants , a lle gin g, in pe rt ine nt p ar t, 11 br each of con tra ct fo r fai li ng to pa y he r m ed ic al ex pe ns es an d in su ran ce badfai th

. Id

. 12 ¶ 5. Zuric h responded b y filing a Rule 1-01 9 m otion to dism iss for failure to j oin an 13 in di sp en sabl e p art y

—Tes uq ue , wh ic h en

joy edso ve rei gn imm

un it y . G all egos , 200 2- 14 NMSC -0 12 , ¶ 5. On ap pe al , ou r Supr em e Co ur t af fir m edth e d is tri ctco ur t, id. ¶ 37, 15 ci tin g f

ed er al pr ec ed en t f

or the pr opos iti on tha t i n a ct ion s in vol vin g c ont r a c t d i s p ute s, 16 th e p art ie s t o t he co nt ract are i nd is pe ns ab le pa rti es . Id

. ¶ 43. 17 { 34} T he Co urt i n G all egos r ea sone d th at the vis ito r’ s c ontra ct

c la im s “ w oul d 18 require that the court interp ret the provision s of the insurance contract, as w ell as 19 determ ine the duties an d re s p o nsibi lities und er the insurance policy ” of T esuque,20

1 Z ur ic h, a nd the vis ito r “ in rel at ion to e ac h othe r” a nd “ as und er sto od b y the 2 contracting parties.” Id

. ¶ 43. “ The propriety

or im propriety of Z urich’ s perform ance 3 unde r the ins ur ance pol ic y [, ] ” the Co urt st at ed , w as of “ subs tanti al int er es t” to 4 T es uque , w hic h “pa id f or the ins ur an ce pr ote ct ion in que sti on and o n w hose be ha lf 5 Zuric h acts.” Id

. A cc or din gly , the Co urt he ld tha t T es uque w as a n in dis pe nsa ble party 6 to th e v is it or ’s cas e ag ai ns t Zu ric h. Id

. ¶ 47. 7 { 35} G all egos does not app ly u n der the fa cts and circum stances of this case. In 8 G all egos , the vis ito r’ s c la im a ga ins t Z ur ic h wa s a com m on law ci vil a ct ion , a lle gin g 9 br each of c on tra ctforfai li ng to pa y he r m ed ic al ex pe ns es an d in su ran ce ba d fa it h. Id

. 10 ¶ 38

. 11 { 36} H er e, Wor k er ’s ca s e w as fi l ed as a s t at u t o ry wo rk er s ’ co m p en s at i o n c l a i m. 12 Fr om the se f ac ts i t f oll ow s tha t the pr oc ed

ur al iss ue s th at

w ar rante d di sm iss al of

the 13 vis ito r’ s c la im

a ga ins t Z ur ic h in G all egos on groun d s o f fa i l ure to j oin an 14 ind isp en sa

ble party —T es uque —are not pr es en te d in W orke r’ s ca se . S pe ci fi ca lly , in 15 G all egos , the vis ito r’ s br ea chof c ontra ct a nd i nsur an ce ba d fai th c la im s a ga ins t 16 Zuric h would have requi red the Court to interpret and determ ine the duties created 17 unde r the ins ur an ce pol ic y ex ec ute d be tw ee n Z ur ic h and the ga m ing c en te r in r el at ion 18 to the vis ito r. T he re fo re , th e Co urt he ld tha t ba se d onthe pr inc ipl e tha t i n a ct ion s 19 inv olv ing c ontra ct

dis put es , the part ie s to the c ontra ct a t i ssu e ar e ind isp en sa

ble21

1 parties , t h e g am ing center, which the district court determ ined enjoy ed tribal 2 sove re ignim

m uni ty in re la tio n to the vis ito r’ s c la im , w as a n i ndi spe nsa ble party 3 w ith out

w hic h th e vis ito r’ s c as e ag ai nst Z ur ic h c oul d no t go f

or w ar d. 4 { 37} H er e, in co ntr as t, inter pr et at ionof

the dut ie s c re at ed

und er the w orke rs ’ 5 com pensation insurance p olicy executed b etwe en Isleta Casino and Hudson is not at 6 iss ue . Rathe r, to suc ce ed on the m er its in he r cl aim fo r w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 7 be ne fi ts b ef

or e the W CA , W orke r ne ed onl y e sta bli sh tha t at the ti m e of

he r ac ci de nt: 8 (1 ) Is le ta Ca sin o had com pli ed w ith w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n law s r eg ar din g ob ta ini ng 9 ins ur an ce ; ( 2) W orke r w as pe rf orm ing “ se rv ic e ar isi ng o ut o f an d inthe c our se of 10 em plo ym en t” ; and ( 3) he r inj ur y w as “ pr oxi m at el y

c au se d by

a cc ide nt ari sin g ou t of 11 an d i n t he co ur se of” he r em pl oym en t an d was “ no t i nt en ti on al ly self

- in fli ct ed .” 12 N MS A 197 8, § 52- 1- 9 (1 973)

. A ddi tio na lly , w orke rs ’ co m pe nsa tio n law , unl ike the 13 co m m on l awof co ntr ac t, ge ne ra lly re qui re s th at both aw or

ke r’ s e m plo y er a nd h is o r 14 he r em

plo y er ’ s in sur er

sha ll be dir ect ly

a nd p ri m ar ily

li ab le to the w orke r to p ay to 15 him or he r w ork in

j ur y be ne fi ts whe re th e af

or em en tio ne d e le m en ts o f a w orke rs ’ 16 co m pe ns at io n c la im

are s at is fie d. See N MS A 197 8, § 52 -1 -4 (A ), (C) (1 990)

. A s a 17 re sul t, e ve n a ssu m ing Is letaCa sin o w as de te rm ine d to e nj oy tr iba l so ve re ign 18 im m uni ty in the c ont ex t of

W orke r’ s w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n cla im , I sle taCa sin o is 19 not an ind ispensabl e p ar t y wi thou t which W orker’ s claim cannot go forwar d und er22

1 G all egos— as both Is le ta Ca sin o an d H udso n m ay be dir ec tly

a nd p ri m ar ily

li ab le to 2 he r fo r wor k i nju ry

un de r wor ke rs ’ co m

pe ns at io n l aw. 3 { 38} Co nc lud ing that G allegos does not apply in this case, we proceed to consider 4 Wor k er ’s cl ai m

t h at we s h o u l d ad o p t t h e r ea s o n i n g i n t h e O k l ah o m a S up re m e C o u rt ’s 5 de ci sio n in W

altrip a nd h old tha t she m ay pur sue he r w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n c la im 6 against Hudson and Tr ibal First in the W CA notwithstand ing that Isleta Casino m ay 7 be im m une. 8 B. Wal

tri p ’s R at ion ale Is P er su asi ve an d Wor k er M ay P ur su e He r C lai m f or 9 Wor k er s’ C om pe ns at ion Be ne fi ts A gai ns t Hu ds on an d Tr ib al F ir st 10 { 39} In W

altrip , a n e m

plo y ee of the O sa ge Mi lli on D oll ar E lm Ca sin o, w hol ly 11 ow ne d and o pe rate d by the O sa ge N at ion , f

el l on a pa tc h of ic e w hil e on the j ob 1 2 w o rk i n g a s as u rv e i l l a n c e s up e rv i s o r a t t h e c a s i n o . 2 0 1 2 O K 6 5 , ¶ ¶ 2

- 3
. A tt h e t i me 13 of the acc ident, the casino carr i ed an insurance policy issued byHudson Insurance 14 Co m pa ny—ad m in is te redby T rib al Fir st . Id

. ¶ 2. Although th e ca s ino’s insurance 15 pol ic y w ith H udso n cont em

pla te d adj udi catio n of

w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n c la im s in 16 T ri ba l C ourt, the O sa ge N at ionha d no t e na ct ed a n or din an ce governing w orke rs ’ 17 co m pe ns at io n. Id

. ¶

9
. T h e e mp l o ye e p r o c e e d e dt o f i l e ac l a i m i n t h e O k l a h o ma 18 W or ke rs ’ Co m

pe ns at io n Co ur t, s eek in g wo rk ers ’ co m pe ns at io n b en efi ts . Id

. ¶ 4. T he 19 W orke rs ’ Co m

pe nsa tio n C ourt, how ev er , dis m iss ed the e m plo y ee ’ s c la im

ba se d on 20 th e cas in o a nd Hud so n’s as se rti on of t rib al so ve rei gn imm un it y as a d efen se . Id

.16 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 85A, § 117 (W est 2014 ) (providing th at “ [e] very em ploy er 1 17 an d in sur an ce c ar

ri er w ho s ch ed

ule s any em

plo y ee a s ape rs on e m

plo y ed by the 18 em plo y er f or the pur pose of pay ing or

c oll ec tin g in sur an ce pr em ium s on a w orke rs ’ 19 co m pe nsa tio n in sur an ce pol ic y or w ho pay s, re ce ive s or co lle ct s an y pr em ium s up on 20 an y ins ur an ce pol ic y

c ove ri ng the li ab ili ty

of suc h e m plo y er und er the w orke rs ’ 21 com pensation lawby

rea son of or upo n the basis o f t h e em ploy m ent of any

such 22 em pl oy ee sha ll be e sto ppe d to de ny that su che m

plo y ee w as e m

plo y ed by the 23 em ploy er”)

. 23 1 Rely ing on a section of the Oklahom a W orkers’ Com pensation Ac t titled “ Estoppel 2 fr om de ny ing e m

plo ym en t” a nd the c om

m on l awr ights i n c ontra ct of thi rd -p ar ty 1 3 be ne fi ci ar ie s, the co urt det er m ine d that al tho ugh the c as ino e nj oy ed tr iba l so ve re ign 4 im m unitybased o n its statu s as a tribal enter prise, H udso n Insurance—a non-tribal 5 D el aw ar e co rp or at ion

—w as not

be y ond the j ur isd ic tio n of the state ’ s W orke rs ’ 6 Co m pe ns at io n C ou rt. Id

. ¶ 19. 7 { 40} The W

altrip co urt’ s r ea soni ng w as a s f oll ow s. P er

the e stopp el st at ute , the 8 em ploy e e h a d be e n c on f

e r r e d third-party

beneficiar

y status un der the insurance policy 9 en te redin to by the cas in o a nd Hud so n. Id

. T he pur pose of the e sto ppe l st at

ute w as to 10 en sur e “ tha t an in sur er w ho a cc ep ts p re m ium s shou ld not e va de li ab ili ty

f or be ne fi ts 11 due und er

c om pe nsa tio n law ” notw ith standi ng an in sur ed ’ s st at us a s asov er ei gn 12 en ti tl edto imm

un it y fro m su it

. Id

. ¶ 7 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 13 H udso n “ kne w or shou ld ha ve known” tha t the O sa ge N at ion ha d put no wor ke rs ’ 14 co m pe nsa tio n or din an ce in pla ce , but sti ll “ [w ill fu lly ] a nd i nte nti ona lly c oll ec t[ ed ] 15 pr em ium s f

ro m the tr iba l e nte rp ri se [, the c as ino , ] f or pr ovi din g w orke rs’24

1 co m pe nsa tio n . . . be lie vin g tha t it w [o uld ] ste p int o the shoe s of the T ri be a nd r ec ei ve 2 the benefit of the T ribe’ s sovereign imm unity .” Id

. ¶ 12. T o pe rm it anins ur er

to ev ad e 3 an y li ab ili ty be ca use o f th e sta tus of

a n e m plo y er that i t i nsur es w oul d “ re nde r the 4 [i nsur an ce ] pol ic y pr ovi sio ns ill usor y an d inane . In sur er w oul d po sse ss the abil ity to 5 ar bitrari ly de ny c la im s and y et

e va de a ny

j udi ci al r ev ie win an y

tr iba l, f ed er al , or state 6 co urt. I t w oul d le av e no av enue f or a n in j ur ed w orke r of

the tr iba l e nte rp ri se to 7 com pel [i] nsu re r’s p er fo rm ance under the policy in a j udicial forum .” Id

. ¶ 15 8 (e m pha sis om itt ed ). A s ar es ult , w ith out atr iba l or di na nc e gove rn ing w orke rs ’ 9 co m pe ns at ion an d e sta

bli shi ng the lawand a

f or um f or a dj udi catio n of

e m plo y ee s’ 10 w orke rs ’ c om

pensa tio n c la im s, the state W orke rs ’ Co m pe nsa tio n C ourt c oul d 11 ex erci se juri sd ic ti on ov er Hu ds on an d Tri ba l Fi rs t. Id

. ¶ 19. 12 { 41} T he ci rc um stanc es c en tr al to the c ourt’ s de ci sio n in W altrip a re str iki ngl y 13 sim ilar to those pr es en te d in thi s ca se . F ir st, li ke the c as ino in W altrip , I sle taCa sin o 14 carr ied a w orkers’ com pensation insurance policy i ss ue d by H ud so n and adm inistered 15 by T ri ba l F ir st at the tim e of

W orke r’ s w ork in

j ur y . L ike the a rr an ge m en t be tw ee n th e 16 Osa ge Na tio n and H udso n in W altrip , t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n f o r c e b e t w e e n I s l e ta 17 Ca sin o and H udso n a

ppe ar ed to co nte m

pla te a dj udi cat i o no f

I s l e t a C a s i n o e m

p loy ee s’ 18 worker s’ com

pensation claim s in som e forum . H owever , at the tim e that the W altrip 19 em plo y ee a nd W orke r w er e inj ur ed , the O sa ge N at iona nd a ppare ntl y I sle taP ue blo25

1 ha d no t a dopt ed

tr iba l or din an ce s go ve rn ing w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n. Upon the f

ili ng 2 o f w o rk e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c o mp l a i n t s w i t h t h e N e wM e x i c o WC A a n dO k l a h o ma 3 W orkers’ Com

pe ns at i on C ou r t , r e sp e c t i ve l y , b ot

h W or ke r and the W altrip emp l o yee’s 4 cl ai m s w er e dis m iss ed on gro unds of tr iba l sove re ign im m uni ty . A nd a s w as the c as e 5 in W altrip , H udso n and T ri ba l F ir st k ne wor shou ld h av e known th at no I sle taP ue blo 6 ordinance g o v er n ing workers’ com pensation wa s in place. Y et H udso n and Tribal 7 Fi rs t sti ll co lle ct ed pr em ium s fr om Is le taP ue blo c ont en din g, onc e ag ai n, that i t w oul d 8 b e n e f i tf r o m th e P u e b l o ’s s o v e r e i g n i mm u n i t y. 9 { 42} Se co nd, O klahom a’ s e sto pp el f ro m de ny ing e m

plo ym en t st at

ute , w hic h is 10 ai m ed a t e nsur ing “ tha t an insur er w ho a cc ep ts p re m ium s sh oul d no t e va de li ab ili ty 11 fo r be ne fi ts d

ue un de r co m

pe nsa tio n law ” notw ith standi ng an in sur ed ’ s st at us a s a 12 so ve rei gn en ti tl ed t o i mm u ni ty from

su it , W altrip , 2012 OK

65, ¶ 7 ( internal 13 quot ation m arks and citation om itted), is sim ilar to S ection 52-1-4(C). As r efer enced 14 ab ove , S ec tio n 52- 1- 4( C) re qui re s th at both an e m

plo y er a nd the e m

plo y er ’ s w orke rs ’ 1 5 co m p e n s a t i o n i n s u r e r

a s s u m e d i r e c ta n dp r i m a ry l i ab i l i t y t o p a y e m p l o y ee s’ 1 6 “ co m p en s at i o n an do t h erwo rk er s ’ co m p en s at i o n b en e f

i t s ” wh er e a n empl o yee’s 17 inj ur ie s are de em ed

c om pe nsabl e. S ec tio n 52 -1 -4 ha s a lso be enc onstru ed by our 18 Su pr em e Court as int en de d to not if y a w orke r tha t the ir em

plo y er ha s c om pli ed w ith 19 the ins ur an ce r equir em en ts o f the W orke rs ’ Co m pe nsa tio n A ct , tha t the em plo y er is26

1 subj ec t t o th e pr ovi sio ns the re of , a nd tha t the w orke r ha s c onc lus ive ly a cc ep te d th e 2 pr ov is io ns of t he W or ke rs ’ Co m pe ns at io n Act
. See Sh op e v. D on C oe Co nstr. Co

. , 3 1979 -N MC A -0 13, ¶

9, 92 N
. M. 508 , 590 P
. 2d 6 56. 4 { 43} Fi na lly , N ew Me xic o c om m on l awe xpr es sly

r ec ogni ze s th at

w orke rs a re thi rd

5 pa rty be ne fi ciari es of wo rk ers ’ co m pe ns at io n i ns ur an ce p ol ic ie s. Se e H ov et v . A lls tat e 6 In s. Co

. , 2004-NMS C-010, ¶¶ 16, 20, 135 N. M. 397, 89 P. 3d 69 (re affir m ing th at 7 worker s are “ intended b eneficiar ies” of worker s’ com pensation insurance policies); 8 R uss el l v

. P rot ec tiv e In s. Co

. , 1988 -N MS C- 025, ¶¶ 15- 16, 107 N
. M. 9, 751 P
. 2d 6 93 9 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t w orke rs a re thi rd -p ar ty be ne fi ci ar ie s un de r w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 10 in su ran ce p ol ic ie s) , abro gat ed on o the r gr ound

s byCr uz v . L ibe rty Mut . I ns. C o. , 1 1 1 9 9 5
- N M S C

- 0 0 6 , ¶

¶ 7
- 1 0 , 1 1 9 N
. M
. 3 0 1 , 8 8 9 P
. 2 d1 223; Points v. W ill is , 193 9- 12 N MS C- 041, ¶

¶ 47, 50, 44 N
. M. 31, 97 P
. 2d 3 74 ( re co gni zi ng tha t wo rk er s and 13 de pe nde nts of

the w orke r ar e thi rd -p art y bene fi ci ar ie s of w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n 14 policies). 15 { 44} Ba se d on th e fo re goi ng f ac tua l and l eg al sim ilari tie s, w e fi nd W altrip 16 persuasive and adopt its rationale. Apply ing th e W altrip reasoning, we co nclude that 17 W orker is a third-party beneficiar

y to th e wo rkers’ com

pensation insurance policy 18 be tw ee n I sle taCa sin o and Hu dson (e vid en ce d by the D ec em be r 1, 201 5, c er

tif ic at e 19 of wor ke rs ’ co m

pe ns at io n i ns ur an ce fi le d wi th th e WCA)

. S pe ci fi ca lly , I sle taCa sin o27

1 an d H udso n int en de d fo r the em plo y ee s of Is le ta Ca sin o, inc lud ing W orke r, to be ne fi t 2 from the rights and p ro t ec tions cre ated under the policy in the event that they

are 3 inj ur ed on the j ob. A ddi tio na lly , the f ili ng o f the ce rt if

ic at e of w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n 4 ins ur an ce w iththe W CA re nde re d Hud son to b ei ng h el d di re ct ly a nd p ri m ar ily

li ab le 5 to p ay w orke rs ’ com

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts a s I sle taCa sin o’ s w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n 6 ins ur er , pur suant t o S ectio n 52-1 -4 (C ). A s ar es ult , w e lik ew ise c onc lud e, a s th e 7 O klahom a Su

pr em e Co urt c onc lud ed

in W altrip , that a llowing Hudson and Tr ibal 8 Fi rs t to d en y

W orke r’ s c la im

in thi s c as e by

hid ing be hin d I sle taP ue blo ’ s so ve re ign 9 im m uni ty r en de rs the P ue blo ’ s in sur an ce pol ic y il lus or y a nd i na ne an d perm its 10 H udso n and T ri ba l Fi rs t to arb itr ar ily e va de j udi ci al r ev ie wof

it s de te rm ina tio n ina ny 11 fo ru m . 12 { 45} Ac co rd i n g l y, we h o l d t h at : (1 ) Hu d s o n an d Tr i b al Fi rs t , as Is l e t a C a s i n o ’s 13 w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n in su rer

a nd thir d- party

a dm ini str at or , a re pr ope r part ie s to 14 W orker’ s worker s’ com pensation case; and (2) assum ing Isleta Casino enjoy s tribal 15 sover ei g n i mm

unityin this case, W orker m ay pursue her claim

for w ork injury 16 be ne fi ts i n th e W CAa ga ins t H udso n and T ri ba l F ir st. 17 CON CLU SION 18 { 46} Fo r the f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p r o c e e d i n g s in 19 W orke r’ s w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n cas e in the W CA in ac co rd an ce w iththi s op ini on.28

1 A d d i t i o n a l l y, o n r e ma n d , Wo rk e r s h a l l b e p e rmi t t e dt o a me n dh e r c o mp l a i n tt o n a me 2 Tr ibal First, a s Hudson’s third-party adm inistrator, as a party

to the case. 3 { 47} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 4

________________________________________ 5 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e

6 WE CO NCUR

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 10 EM IL J. KI EH N E, Ju dg e