application of an evidentiary rule in New Mexico

2014“In reviewing a WCJ’s interpretation of statutory requirements, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Id. ¶ 14. {10} In Hall v. Carlsbad Supermarket/IGA, 2008-NMCA-026 , ¶ 10, 143 N.M. 479 , 177 P.3d 530 , we stated that the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 52-1-1 to -70 (1929, as amended through 2013), “limits the testimony that can be provided by medical experts at a workers’ compensation hearing to testimony by a treating physician or a health care provider who has provided an [IME] pursuant to the Act.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see § 52-1-51(C).

2014“In reviewing a WCJ’s interpretation of statutory requirements, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Id. ¶ 14. {10} In Hall v. Carlsbad Supermarket/IGA, 2008-NMCA-026 , ¶ 10, 143 N.M. 479 , 177 P.3d 530 , we stated that the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 52-1-1 to -70 (1929, as amended through 2013), “limits the testimony that can be provided by medical experts at a workers’ compensation hearing to testimony by a treating physician or a health care provider who has provided an [IME] pursuant to the Act.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see § 52-1-51(C).

2022The State relies on the Odyssey Letter’s interpretation of Order 13-8500 to support its claim. {11} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment, but we apply a de novo standard to review any interpretations of law underlying the evidentiary ruling.” Holzem v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 2013-NMCA-100, ¶ 14 , 311 P.3d 1198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020“With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment, but we apply a de novo standard to review any interpretations of law underlying the evidentiary ruling.” Holzem v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 2013-NMCA-100, ¶ 14 , 311 P.3d 1198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {18} Plaintiffs contend that no expert testimony was necessary to introduce Mrs. Nelson’s medical bills.

2022Defendants contend that a request for admission itself is a tool to narrow the issues, not a discovery device, and that Warner’s qualified response should not be considered conclusive. {20} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we . . . apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment.” Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 2009-NMSC-032, ¶ 13 , 146 N.M. 453 , 212 P.3d 341 . “[T]he complaining party on appeal must show the erroneous admission and exclusion of evidence was prejudicial in order to obtain

2022Defendants contend that a request for admission itself is a tool to narrow the issues, not a discovery device, and that Warner’s qualified response should not be considered conclusive. {20} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we . . . apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment.” Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 2009-NMSC-032, ¶ 13 , 146 N.M. 453 , 212 P.3d 341 . “[T]he complaining party on appeal must show the erroneous admission and exclusion of evidence was prejudicial in order to obtain

2020The law is clear that “a plaintiff seeking admission of medical bills must . . . establish through expert testimony that medical bills are reasonable and related to the claimed injuries.” See Segura v. K-Mart Corp., 2003-NMCA-013, ¶ 26 , 133 N.M. 192 , 62 P.3d 283 .

2020The law is clear that “a plaintiff seeking admission of medical bills must . . . establish through expert testimony that medical bills are reasonable and related to the claimed injuries.” See Segura v. K-Mart Corp., 2003-NMCA-013, ¶ 26 , 133 N.M. 192 , 62 P.3d 283 .

2019Sch., 2018-NMCA-049 , ¶ 32, 424 P.3d 643 (“With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard when the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment[.]”) (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {26} Despite Outback’s framing of this argument strictly as a matter of law requiring de novo review of the district court’s interpretation of the NMHRA, our review here necessarily entails the jury’s findings of fact in light of the jury instructions given at trial because as Outback argues

2019For this reason a standard of review was designed to resolve all doubts in favor of the jury verdict.” Gonzales v. Sansoy, 1984-NMSC-098 , ¶ 5, 102 N.M. 136 , 692 P.2d 522 (citation omitted).

2019For this reason a standard of review was designed to resolve all doubts in favor of the jury verdict.” Gonzales v. Sansoy, 1984-NMSC-098 , ¶ 5, 102 N.M. 136 , 692 P.2d 522 (citation omitted).

2015“With 15 respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we generally apply an abuse of 16 discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise 17 of discretion or judgment, but we apply a de novo standard to review any 18 interpretations of law underlying the evidentiary ruling.” DeWitt v. Rent-A-Center, 19 Inc., 2009-NMSC-032, ¶ 13 , 146 N.M. 453 , 212 P.3d 341 ; State v. Rojo, 3 1 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (“We review the trial court’s 2 evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”); see also State v. Martinez, 3 2008-NMSC-060, ¶

2015“With 15 respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we generally apply an abuse of 16 discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise 17 of discretion or judgment, but we apply a de novo standard to review any 18 interpretations of law underlying the evidentiary ruling.” DeWitt v. Rent-A-Center, 19 Inc., 2009-NMSC-032, ¶ 13 , 146 N.M. 453 , 212 P.3d 341 ; State v. Rojo, 3 1 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (“We review the trial court’s 2 evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”); see also State v. Martinez, 3 2008-NMSC-060, ¶

2012“An abuse of discretion 19 occurs when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the 3 1 facts and circumstances of the case.” Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 65, 122 N.M. 2 618 , 930 P.2d 153 . “[E]ven when we review for an abuse of discretion, our review 3 of the application of the law to the facts is conducted de novo.

2012“An abuse of discretion 19 occurs when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the 3 1 facts and circumstances of the case.” Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 65, 122 N.M. 2 618 , 930 P.2d 153 . “[E]ven when we review for an abuse of discretion, our review 3 of the application of the law to the facts is conducted de novo.