Court Opinion

ID: 9590958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:00:30.59997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:18.992756
License: Public Domain

ARMIJO, Judge (dissenting). I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority and would remand with instructions to the trial court to determine the issue of latency. Appellant requested a conclusion of law that his injury was latent, based on his request for findings of fact supporting this result. Appellees tendered requested findings and conclusions to the contrary. By its judgment the trial court seemingly resolved this issue in appellant’s favor but failed to so specify in its decision. As noted in the majority opinion there was dispute in the evidence on this point sufficient to support a finding pro or con. I think this presents an “irreconcilable conflict” situation similar to that in Baker v. Shufflebarger & Associates, Inc., 77 N.M. 50, 419 P.2d 250 (1966) (on review of other issues 78 N.M. 642, 436 P.2d 502 (1968)). See also Walter E. Heller & Company of California v. Stephens, 79 N.M. 74, 439 P.2d 723 (1968). I dissent.