Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Excluding farm, ranch laborers from comp system found unconstitutional

Reprints
Excluding farm, ranch laborers from comp system found unconstitutional

Excluding farm and ranch laborers from New Mexico's workers compensation system is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

Maria Angelica Aguirre, who worked as a chili picker for M.A. & Sons Chile Products in Arrey, New Mexico, sustained occupational injuries in 2012 when she slipped in a field and broke her wrist, court records show. She filed a workers comp claim in March 2013, seeking temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, medical benefits and attorney fees.

M.A. & Sons and its self-insurance fund, the Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico, said her claims were barred by the farm and ranch laborer exclusion, which states that such workers aren't covered under the state's workers comp act, according to records.

Ms. Aguirre filed a motion for partial summary judgment in January 2014, but a workers comp judge denied her motion and dismissed her claim with prejudice on the basis of the exclusion, records show.

Meanwhile, Noe Rodriguez, a dairy worker and herdsman at Brand West Dairy in Lovington, New Mexico, suffered a traumatic brain injury, a neck injury and facial disfigurement in 2012 when he was pushed up against a door and head-butted by a cow, according to records.

Brand West Dairy didn't have workers comp insurance but provided Mr. Rodriguez with two checks for $600, records show. In February 2013, Mr. Rodriguez filed a workers comp claim seeking temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, disfigurement, medical benefits and attorney fees.

However, the New Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund, which acts as the insurer for businesses without workers comp, moved to dismiss the claim because of the farm and ranch laborer exclusion in July 2013, according to records.

Both workers appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, and their cases were consolidated. A divided three-judge panel of the appellate court ruled in June 2015 that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion violates workers' equal protection rights under the state's constitution, and the consolidated case was accepted for review by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

A divided New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the appellate court's decision, ruling 4-1 that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion violates “equal protection rights under the New Mexico Constitution and does not survive under any level of scrutiny.”

Workers comp insurance is generally mandatory for private employers with three or more employees, except for employers of private domestic servants and farm and ranch laborers, records show.

According to the ruling, workers who occasionally perform tasks of farm and ranch laborers aren't classified as such if they are primarily employed for a different purpose, such as packaging products. Proponents of the exclusion argue that it provides cost savings for agricultural employers and administrative convenience, among other things, records show.

But the state Supreme Court found “there is neither firm legal rationale nor evidence in the record to establish a rational relationship between this purpose and the differential treatment of farm and ranch laborers under the (workers comp) act.”

While lowering costs for employers is a “valid legislative goal” of the workers comp act, such “cost savings are only achieved through arbitrary discrimination against farm and ranch laborers,” the ruling states.

In addition, as Ms. Aguirre's and Mr. Rodriguez's occupational injuries resulted from unpredictable working conditions, it's “extremely unlikely” that either of these injuries could be the basis for a common law tort claim, according to the ruling.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Judith K. Nakamura states that allowing employers of farm and ranch laborers to choose whether they want to provide workers comp insurance or face tort liability doesn't violate rights guaranteed by the state's constitution.

The cases have been remanded to the respective workers comp judges for resolution without reliance on the farm and ranch laborer exclusion.

Read Next