Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Development Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Sanchez v. Siemens Transmission Systems

    112 N.M. 236 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that "[t]o the extent that employer[/respondent] attempts to raise [a conflict of interest between the petitioner and her attorney] on claimant's[/petitioner's] behalf, however, we fail to see how employer has standing"

    Simply because claimant is disabled does not necessarily establish a need for rehabilitation. See Lopez v. Smith's Management Corp. (vocational rehabilitation is inappropriate when there is little possibility of claimant ever resuming any remunerative employment); Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Dev. Co., 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct.App. 1985) (workers are not entitled to benefits merely because of an inability to return to their former job). Further, even assuming that claimant is entitled to rehabilitation benefits, no evidence was presented regarding the extent of vocational rehabilitation necessary.

  2. Fuyat v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory

    112 N.M. 102 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting the argument that in a workers' compensation case, physicians' testimony was required to demonstrate general acceptance of the scientific techniques employed

    The worker is not entitled to benefits merely because she cannot return to her former job. Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Dev. Co., 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct.App. 1985). In this case, it is undisputed that claimant cannot return to her former job as a chemist, since chemicals trigger her symptoms.

  3. Apex Lines, Inc. v. Lopez

    815 P.2d 162 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    Allowing the award of overpaid benefits to an employer under a common-law restitutionary theory

    To establish entitlement to such benefits, worker had to prove he was unable to return to his prior employment and that rehabilitation services were necessary to restore him to suitable employment. See Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Dev. Co., 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct.App. 1985). Worker also had to show he was a proper candidate for vocational rehabilitation, in that there was a likelihood the rehabilitation would restore him to suitable employment.

  4. Jaramillo v. Consolidated Freightways

    109 N.M. 712 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the WCJ's conclusion that there was no change in the worker's physical condition

    Proof of need for vocational rehabilitation services requires evidence that (1) as a result of a compensable injury, the worker is unable to return to his or her former employment, or is permanently unable to some percentage extent to perform work for which he or she has previous training or experience; and (2) that the worker is a proper candidate for and in need of vocational rehabilitation. See Sanchez v. Homestake Mining Co.; Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Dev. Co., 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct.App. 1985); see also Garcia v. Albuquerque Pub. Schools. To qualify for vocational rehabilitation benefits a worker must show that there is a likelihood that such rehabilitation will enable him to return to suitable employment.

  5. Gutierrez v. Amity Leather Products Co.

    107 N.M. 26 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that an injury is only compensable "if it results from an accidental injury 'arising out of and occurring 'in the course of' the worker's employment"

    While this section is mandatory in nature, Gutierrez had the burden of presenting sufficient evidence so as to establish a need for rehabilitation benefits. See Lopez v. Smith's Mgmt. Corp.; Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Dev. Co., 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct.App. 1985). The trial court found:

  6. Hernandez v. Mead Foods, Inc.

    104 N.M. 67 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that "the medical benefits for which recovery is sought must be incidental to and a concomitant part of the injury sustained in a work-related accident"

    In light of the testimony that plaintiff could return to his former job, the trial court did not err in refusing to award vocational rehabilitation benefits. See Nichols v. Teledyne Economic Development Co., 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct.App. 1985). Entitlement to attorney fees is dependent upon a recovery of compensation through the services of the attorney.