Court Opinion

ID: 9624330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:58:30.352305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:46.232228
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING MOISE, Justice. The motion for rehearing asserts that the opinion in the case weighs the evidence and reaches a conclusion contrary to the court’s findings, and that in doing so we have departed from the role of an appellate court consistently followed by us. Among other cases, principal reliance is placed upon what was said in Thompson v. The Banes Co., Inc., 71 N.M. 154, 376 P.2d 574 (1962); Romero v. H. A. Lott, Inc., 70 N.M. 40, 369 P.2d 777 (1962); and Mathews v. New Mexico Light & Power Co., 46 N.M. 118, 122 P.2d 410 (1942). This contention is totally devoid of merit.  Although we did not do so, we could and probably should have quoted the trial court’s findings 6 and 7. We do so now: “6. That because of the general bodily impairment resulting from his said in-injury, Plaintiff is unable to continue to do the type of work which he had done previously and which is the only type of work for which he is fitted by education, training, experience, general physical condition and mental capacity. “7. That Plaintiff has never attended school and has worked only as a labor foreman and has otherwise performed only heavy manual and unskilled labor.” Nowhere in its findings did the court suggest that the disability was less than total. In its conclusion 4, the court concluded: “That Plaintiff’s injury has rendered him permanently disable [sic] to the extent of 20% of total bodily ability.” It is this conclusion that is not supported by the findings and which is corrected by our opinion. This is our function. Whitehurst v. Rainbo Baking Co., 70 N.M. 468, 374 P.2d 849 (1962). In the opinion, we have set forth certain evidence — -not to establish a lack of support for the trial court’s findings — but to demonstrate that the findings were substantially supported. As stated, there was no conflict. It is conclusion 4, quoted above, which does not follow from the facts as found, and which reqitircd a reversal. See Thompson v. H. B. Zachry Co., 75 N.M. 715, 410 P.2d 740 (1966); Star Realty Co. v. Sellers, 73 N.M. 207, 387 P.2d 319 (1963). We see no reason advanced by the motion for rehearing which moves us to in any way modify our holding previously announced. The motion is denied.  Counsel for plaintiff-appellant has requested that we fix an amount deemed by us to be reasonable and proper to be paid as attorney fees on appeal, in addition to compensation allowed defendant. Provision for such an allowance is contained in § 59 — 10— 23(D), N.M.S.A. 1953. In accordance therewith, we deem the sum of $1,000.00 to be reasonable and proper, and fix it as the amount to be paid as and for attorney fees on appeal. It is so ordered. CHAVEZ, C. J., and COMPTON, J., concur. NOBLE and CARMODY, JJ., dissenting.