Court Opinion

ID: 9790245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:49:34.166372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:13.272572
License: Public Domain

OPINION WOOD, Judge. Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury and is being paid compensation benefits. His suit made two claims: (1) that our compensation statute violated due process to the extent the disability benefits were inadequate in amount; and (2) that he was entitled to a ten percent increase in disability benefits under our safety device statute, § 52-1-10, N.M.S.A. 1978. The trial court ruled against each claim; plaintiff appeals. Due Process — Amount of Disability Benefits Plaintiff recognizes that he comes within § 52-1-9, N.M.S.A. 1978, which provides that his right to compensation is his exclusive remedy against his employer. He recognizes that he is being paid the maximum benefits authorized for a total disability under § 52 — 1—41, N.M.S.A. 1978, and that the dollar amount of those benefits is limited to the amount payable at the time disability began, see § 52 — 1—48, N.M.S.A. 1978. Plaintiff does not claim that a compulsory worker’s compensation system is unconstitutional. Tipton v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 298 U.S. 141, 56 S.Ct. 715, 80 L.Ed. 1091 (1936); New York Central R. R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917); compare Howell v. Burk, 90 N.M. 688, 568 P.2d 214 (Ct.App.1977). Plaintiff’s claim is that New Mexico’s compensation statute deprives him of due process because it does not provide sufficient compensation and “relegates disabled workers to a subsistence standard of living.” Plaintiff argues that a compensation system which, he claims, is a substitute for the worker’s right to recover common-law damages, deprives the worker of due process unless the disability benefits adequately compensate the injured worker. In support of this argument plaintiff points out that the disability benefits being paid to him ($81.32 per week) are two-thirds of his average weekly wage, and that under minimum wage laws in effect at the time of his injury, his minimum wage, at $2.90 per hour for a 40-hour week, would have been $116.00 per week. The inference is that disability benefits which are less than a statutory minimum wage scale establish inadequate compensation and are a violation of due process. The argument is specious because it is based on the view that benefits paid to a disabled worker may not be less than the minimum wage paid to someone working 40 hours a week. Plaintiff states that he has found no decision which supports his claim; he does, however, refer us to New York Central R. R. Co. v. White, supra, which in upholding compulsory compensation, stated: This, of course, is not to say that any scale of compensation, however insignificant on the one hand or onerous on the other, would be supportable. In this case, no criticism is made on the ground that the compensation prescribed by the statute in • question is unreasonable in amount, either in general or in the particular case. Any question of that kind may be met when it arises. Plaintiff challenges the amount of disability benefits being paid to him, claiming that with the number of children he supports, the amount is unreasonable. Plaintiff’s claim involves substantive due process. We do not attempt to outline the present boundaries of the concept. See Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937 (1905); West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703 (1937); Lincoln Fed. L. U. v. Northwestern I. & M. Co., 335 U.S. 525, 69 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 212 (1949); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law Ch. 8 (1978); Perry, Substantive Due Process Revisited: Reflections on (And Beyond) Recent Cases, 71 Nw.U.L.Rev. 417 (1976-77); Perry, Abortion, the Public Morals, and the Police Power: The Ethical Function of Substantive Due Process, 23 U.C.L. A.L.Rev. 689 (1976); Wellington, Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication, 83 Yale L.J. 221 (1973-74). Rather, we assume, but do not decide, that plaintiff’s claim is one on which relief could be afforded, and decide the merits of the claim. Pedrazza v. Sid Fleming Con., Inc., 94 N.M. 59, 607 P.2d 597 (1980), comments: “A state violates the due process clause when it interferes with a fundamental right or a vested property interest.” Pedrazza holds that workmen’s compensation is not a fundamental right. Assuming that plaintiff has a vested property interest in disability benefits provided by our statute, plaintiff is being paid those benefits. Plaintiff is asserting a due process right to benefits which have not been authorized by the Legislature, specifically, the right to a larger amount for disability. Pedrazza states: “This Court will not * * * say that the plaintiffs have a due process property right which the Legislature has not seen fit to confer * * * * ” Under Pedrazza, plaintiff’s due process claim to larger disability benefits is without merit. Rocky Mountain Whole. Co. v. Ponca Whole. Mercan. Co., 68 N.M. 228, 360 P.2d 643 (1961), remarks: [A] state is free to adopt an economic policy that may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare and may enforce that policy by appropriate legislation without violation of the due process clause so long as such legislation has a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.  The purpose of our workmen’s compensation statute is to provide an humanitarian and economical system of compensation to the injured workman. Graham v. Wheeler, 77 N.M. 455, 423 P.2d 980 (1967). That our statute has a proper legislative purpose is not questioned. See Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co., 29 N.M. 228, 222 P. 903 (1924). The statute is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory; its provisions apply to all workers subject to the statute. See State v. Spears, 57 N.M. 400, 259 P.2d 356, 39 A.L.R.2d 595 (1953). The issue is whether the amount of the disability benefits provided by the act has a reasonable relation to the economic purpose involved.  The economic purpose is to keep an injured workman and his family at least minimally secure financially, Aranda v. Mississippi Chemical Corp., 93 N.M. 412, 600 P.2d 1202 (Ct.App.1979); “to secure the injured employee against want, and to avoid his becoming a public charge”, Hughey v. Ware, et al., 34 N.M. 29, 276 P. 27 (1929). “A large discretion is necessarily vested in the Legislature to determine, not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.” State v. Spears, 57 N.M. at 410, 259 P.2d 356.  We cannot hold that disability benefits based on two-thirds of plaintiffs average weekly wage have no reasonable relation to the economic purpose of the compensation statute. Plaintiff argues this issue solely on the basis of the dollar amount of the disability benefits; this argument fails to consider other benefits of economic nature conferred by the statute. Some of these benefits are: A uniform scale of compensation which substitutes for the “varying and widely divergent estimates of juries,” Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co., supra; a right to compensation which eliminates legal defenses favorable to the employer, § 52-1-8, N.M.S.A. 1978; Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co.; medical and related benefits, § 52-1-49, N.M.S.A. 1978, which at the time of the district court hearing amounted to $7,828.64; and rehabilitation services, § 52-1-50, N.M.S.A. 1978. Viewing all of these economic benefits, the amount paid for disability does have a reasonable relation to the economic purpose of our statute; the amount of the disability benefit did not violate due process, either on the face of the statute or as applied to plaintiff. Safety Device  Plaintiff sought a ten percent increase in his disability benefits on the basis that the employer had failed “to provide safety devices required by law * * * * ” Section 52 — 1—10(B), supra. His theory was that certain safety devices were required by regulations adopted under New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, §§ 50-9-2 and 50-9-7, N.M.S.A. 1978, and that safety devices required by these regulations had not been provided by the employer. The trial court ruled that these regulations were not admissible. There being nothing else showing a failure to provide safety devices required “by law”, the safety device issue was dismissed with prejudice. The trial court ruled correctly that the safety devices required by the regulations were not required “by law” because of § 50-9-21(A), N.M.S.A. 1978. This statute reads: A. Nothing in the Occupational Health and Safety Act [50-9-1 to 50-9-25 NMSA 1978] shall be construed or held to supersede or in any manner affect the Workmen’s Compensation Act [52-1-1 to 52-1-69 NMSA 1978], the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law [52-3-1 to 52-3-54 NMSA 1978], or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common-law or statutory rights, duties or liabilities of employers and employees under the laws of this state with respect to injuries, occupational or other diseases or death of employees arising out of or in the course of employment. Section 50-9-21(A) provides that nothing in New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Act affects our Compensation Act, or the liabilities of employers under the laws of this state with respect to injuries arising out of or in the course of employment. Inasmuch as New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Act does not affect the employer’s liability under our Compensation Act, regulations adopted under the authority of New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Act also do not affect that liability, and safety devices required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act regulations are not required “by law” for the purposes of § 52-l-10(B), supra. Compare Arvas v. Feather’s Jewelers, 92 N.M. 89, 582 P.2d 1302 (Ct.App.1978). We disagree with Childers v. International Harvester Co., 569 S.W.2d 675 (Ky.App.1977), which reached a contrary conclusion without considering the express language contained in the Kentucky statute which is similar to § 50-9-21(A), supra. The trial court’s order rejecting the due process claim, and its order dismissing the safety device claim, are affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. LOPEZ, J., concurs. SUTIN, J., dissenting.