Herrera v. Heritage Home Healthcare
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 JUANITA B. HERRERA, 3 Worker-Appellant, 4 v. No. 33,841 5 HERITAGE HOME HEALTHCARE and 6 NEW MEXICO MUTUAL CASUALTY, 7 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 8 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 9 Leonard J. Padilla, District Judge 10 Juanita B. Herrera 11 Los Lunas, NM 12 Pro Se Appellant 13 Camp Law, LLC 14 Minerva Camp 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellees 17 18 SUTIN, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Worker appeals the denial of her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We 2 issued a notice of proposed disposition proposing to affirm, and Worker has filed a 3 memorandum opposing the proposed affirmance. 4 {2} We have reviewed the arguments made in the memorandum in opposition but 5 are not convinced by those arguments. In particular, we point out the following. 6 First, as we stated in our notice, Worker was required to present expert medical 7 testimony at trial showing that her current medical issues are related to the spider or 8 insect bite she suffered many years ago. See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-28(B) (1987). 9 Worker did not present such expert testimony. She now argues that her medical 10 records establish that she suffered medical problems as a result of the bite. [MIO 1] 11 We agree that there was evidence that at the time of the bite and for some period of 12 time thereafter, Worker suffered physical injuries as a result of the bite. In fact, 13 Worker was paid temporary total disability benefits for some time, until the benefits 14 ceased in June 2007. [RP 307] However, when Worker renewed her claim for 15 benefits many years after her first claim was resolved, she was required to present 16 expert medical testimony supporting her argument that her current medical issues 17 continue to be a product of the insect or spider bite that occurred prior to her original 18 claim for benefits. She did not do so and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements 19 of the workers’ compensation statute. 2 1 {3} We note also that Worker argues she is unable to read and write due to dyslexia. 2 This fact, however, is unrelated to her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. 3 Such benefits are provided only to compensate for disabilities arising out of work4 related injuries, rather than for non-work-related disabilities such as dyslexia. See 5 NMSA 1978, § 52-1-9 (1973). Therefore, the workers’ compensation judge acted 6 correctly by not finding a right to compensation based on Worker’s dyslexia. 7 {4} Finally, we note that Worker attached material to her memorandum in 8 opposition, taped with duct tape, which is not properly considered while the case 9 remains on the summary calendar. We have not removed the duct tape or considered 10 this material prior to issuing this Opinion. 11 {5} For the reasons stated herein and in the notice of proposed disposition, we 12 affirm. 13 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 __________________________________ JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17 _______________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 3 1 _______________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
