Castro-Montanez v. Milk-N-Autural
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Filed: August 4, 2016 3 JOSE CASTRO-MONTANEZ, 4 Worker-Respondent, 5 v. NO. S-1-SC-35609 6 MILK-N-ATURAL, LLC, 7 Employer-Petitioner, 8 and 9 NEW MEXICO UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND, 10 Statutory Third Party-Respondent. 11 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI 12 13 14 15 Hinkle Shanor LLP Chelsea Balzano Green Alyssa Dawn Fugitt Roswell, NM 16 for Petitioner 17 New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty 1 Timothy M. Davis 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 for Worker-Respondent 4 DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REVERSAL 5 CHÁVEZ, Justice. 6 {1} This Court granted Milk-N-Atural, LLC’s (Milk-N-Atural) petition for writ of 7 certiorari and held it in abeyance pending the outcome of Rodriguez v. Brand West 8 Dairy (Rodriguez II), 2016-NMSC-___, ___ P.3d ___ (Nos. S-1-SC-35426 & S-1-SC9 35438, June 30, 2016). See Castro-Montanez v. Milk-N-Atural, LLC, No. S-1-SC10 35609, order 1-2 (N.M. Sup. Ct. Jan. 19, 2016). On June 30, 2016, we filed an 11 opinion in Rodriguez II holding that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion contained 12 in NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-6(A) (1990) of the New Mexico Workers’ 13 Compensation Act is unconstitutional and directed that our holding be prospectively 14 applied to any injury that manifests after the date that our mandate issued in Rodriguez 15 II pursuant to Rule 12-402(B) NMRA. Rodriguez II, 2016-NMSC-___, ¶¶ 2, 51. 16 Because the injury alleged by Castro-Montanez manifested itself before the date we 17 issued the mandate in Rodriguez II, our holding in Rodriguez II does not inure to his 18 benefit. 2 1 {2} All of the Justices having concurred that there is no reasonable likelihood that 2 a written decision or opinion would affect the disposition of this appeal or advance the 3 law in New Mexico, we enter this dispositional order of reversal of the Court of 4 Appeals and affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Milk-N-Atural by the 5 worker’s compensation judge (WCJ). Castro-Montanez v. Milk-N-Atural, LLC, No. 6 34,772, mem. op. ¶¶ 3-4 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015) (non-precedential). 7 {3} Castro-Montanez alleges that on November 22, 2014, he injured his shoulder 8 and knee after being thrown by a bull while employed as a milker and pusher at Milk9 N-Atural’s dairy. Castro-Montanez filed a complaint seeking workers’ compensation 10 on January 2, 2015. On April 17, 2015, Milk-N-Atural filed a motion for summary 11 judgment claiming that Castro-Montanez’s claim was barred by the farm and ranch 12 laborer exclusion. On May 28, 2015, the WCJ granted Milk-N-Atural’s motion for 13 summary judgment. Castro-Montanez subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the 14 Court of Appeals on June 18, 2015. Several days later, on June 22, 2015, the Court 15 of Appeals issued its decision holding that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion was 16 unconstitutional in Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy (Rodriguez I), 2015-NMCA-097, 17 ¶ 7, 356 P.3d 546, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. The workers in Rodriguez I 18 had filed workers’ compensation complaints two years prior to Castro-Montanez’s 3 1 complaint, in February and March 2013 respectively. 2 {4} On October 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ’s decision to 3 grant Milk-N-Atural’s motion for summary judgment based on the Court of Appeals’s 4 decision in Rodriguez I. Castro-Montanez, No. 34,772, mem. op. ¶ 2 (non- 5 precedential). This Court issued a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals and 6 ordered that Castro-Montanez be held in abeyance pending our resolution of 7 Rodriguez II. 8 {5} This Court’s opinion in Rodriguez II will apply prospectively to all injuries 9 suffered by farm and ranch laborers that manifest after the date that the mandate in 10 Rodriguez II issues, with the exception of the workers’ claims in Rodriguez II. 201611 NMSC-___, ¶ 51. Therefore, the farm and ranch laborer exclusion applies to the 12 claim filed by Castro-Montanez, and the WCJ was correct to grant summary judgment 13 to Milk-N-Atural. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ADJUDGED THAT: 15 {6} The Court of Appeals is reversed and the summary judgment entered by the 16 WCJ in favor of Milk-N-Atural is affirmed. 17 18 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ 4 1 EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice 2 3 ____________________________________ CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice 4 5 ___________________________________ PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice 6 7 __________________________________ BARBARA J. Vigil, Justice 8 9 ___________________________________ JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice 5
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.
