N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 52 / Article 1
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 52-1-25 (2026)

1 NMSA 1978. Jeffrey v. Hays Plumbing & Heating, 1994-NMCA-071, 118 N.M.

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
60, 878 P.2d 1009.
Law reviews. — For survey of 1990-91 workers' compensation law, see 22 N.M.L. Rev.
845 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Montez v. J & B Radiator, Inc., 779 P.2d 129 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Montez v. J & B Radiator, Inc., 779 P.2d 129 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 25× “The percentage shall be determined by the hearing officer pursuant to the provisions of Section 52-1-25 NMSA 1978. The duration of partial disability benefits shall in no event be longer than six hundred weeks.”
Valdez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1998-NMCA-030, 954 P.2d 87. · cites it 30× “Worker, although very limited to walking and standing for any extended period of time, has not sustained permanent and total loss of use of both hands or both arms or both feet or both legs or both eyes or any two of them as required in § 52-1-25 for permanent total disability…”
Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs., 2005-NMSC-028, 120 P.3d 413. · cites it 9× “NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25(A) (2003); NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25.”
Toynbee v. Mimbres Mem'l Nursing Home, 833 P.2d 1204 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 18× “" Our examination of the record indicates that the medical experts called by Worker to testify concerning causation and the percentage of Worker's disability resulting from her work-related accident did not testify that she suffered a permanent physical impairment to her body as…”
Barela v. Midcon of New Mexico, Inc., 785 P.2d 271 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “] Section 52-1-25 of the Interim Act defined partial disability: As used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act * * * “partial disability” means a permanent physical impairment to a workman resulting from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, whereby a…”
Varela v. Arizona Pub. Serv., 784 P.2d 1049 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 17× “The hearing officer’s award was based on the provisions of Section 52-1-25. Worker contends, however, that he was entitled to an award of total disability benefits under Section 52-l-24(A) instead.”
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 866 P.2d 368 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 16× “Extent of Disability Claimant argues that the Judge erred in failing to find that he was permanently totally disabled, and that the Judge's finding that he was only 38% permanently partially disabled is not supported by substantial evidence under a whole-record standard of…”
Barnett & Casbarian, Inc. v. Ortiz, 838 P.2d 476 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 14× “NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25. A. Work For Which Ortiz is Fitted Ortiz's primary contention is that his union office is not "work for which he is fitted by age, education, training, general physical and mental capacity and previous work experience.”
Anaya v. New Mexico Steel Erectors, Inc., 610 P.2d 1199 (N.M. 1980). · cites it 5× “1978) which requires that a workman must be “unable to some percentage-extent to perform any work for which he is fitted,” (§ 52-1-25, N.M.S.A.1978) before he is considered disabled and thereby qualify to receive benefits.”
Clavery v. Zia Co., 720 P.2d 1262 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 12× “See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25. Defendants also appeal the attorney fees award.”
Aranda v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 600 P.2d 1202 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “Section 52-1-25 of our Workmen's Compensation Act provides: "As used in the Workmen's Compensation Act, `partial disability' means a condition whereby a workman, by reason of injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, is unable to some percentage-extent to…”
Gonzales v. Lovington Pub. Schs., 785 P.2d 276 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “If the injury is to a body member or function not listed in subsection B, then subsection C of Section 52-1-43 refers the fact finder to the partial disability section of the Interim Act, Section 52-1-25. That would be the case here, since we are concerned with an injury to the…”
Show all 62 citing cases →
N.M. Stat. § 52-1-25(A): 9 cases
Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs., 2005-NMSC-028, 120 P.3d 413. “NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25(A) (2003); NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25.”
Valdez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1998-NMCA-030, 954 P.2d 87. “Worker, although very limited to walking and standing for any extended period of time, has not sustained permanent and total loss of use of both hands or both arms or both feet or both legs or both eyes or any two of them as required in § 52-1-25 for permanent total disability…”
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 866 P.2d 368 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). “Extent of Disability Claimant argues that the Judge erred in failing to find that he was permanently totally disabled, and that the Judge's finding that he was only 38% permanently partially disabled is not supported by substantial evidence under a whole-record standard of…”
Mieras v. Dyncorp, 925 P.2d 518 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).
Kitchell v. Pub. Serv. Co., 1998-NMSC-051, 972 P.2d 344.
N.M. Stat. § 52-1-25(A)(2): 3 cases
Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs., 2005-NMSC-028, 120 P.3d 413. “NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25(A) (2003); NMSA 1978, § 52-1-25.”
Martin v. Risk Mangagement (N.M. Ct. App. 2020).
Case v. Hanna Plumbing & Heating Co., No. 34,934 (N.M. Ct. App. July 18, 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.