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

N.M. Stat. § 52-1-58 (2026)

Reports to be filed with director.

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. It is the duty of every employer of labor in this state subject to the provisions of
the Workers' Compensation Act or the employer's workers' compensation insurance
carrier to make a written report to the director of all accidental injuries or occupational
diseases that occur to any of his employees during the course of their employment and
that result in lost time of an employee of more than seven days. A copy of the report
shall be sent by the employer to the worker. Such reports shall be made within ten days
after such accidental injury or ten days after notification to the employer of employee
disability, upon forms approved by the director and shall contain such information
concerning the accident or injury as may be required by the director.

    B. Upon request of the director, it is also the duty of every workers' compensation
self-insurer and insurance carrier to file with the director closing reports upon the closing
of a claim on forms approved by the director. Annual reports will be required on a form
approved by the director.

History: Laws 1937, ch. 92, § 14; 1941 Comp., § 57-927; 1953 Comp., § 59-10-27;
Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 20; 1987, ch. 235, § 27; 1989, ch. 263, § 34; 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch.
2, § 24.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 1990 (2nd S.S.) amendment, effective January 1, 1991, divided the preexisting
language into Subsections A and B and, in Subsection A, substituted "or occupational
diseases that" for "which may" and "that" for "which", added the second sentence, and
inserted "or ten days after notification to the employer of employee disability".

Meaning of lost time of more than seven days. — The phrase "result in lost time of
an employee of more than seven days" in Subsection A of Section 52-1-58 NMSA 1978
means the employee is unable to work anywhere for more than seven days, regardless
of whether the employee actually still works for the employer. Nelson v. Homier Distrib.
Co., Inc., 2009-NMCA-125, 147 N.M. 318, 222 P.3d 690.

Where an employee’s injury would prevent the employee working for more than
seven days following an injury, an employer must file a report. Nelson v. Homier
Distrib. Co., Inc., 2009-NMCA-125, 147 N.M. 318, 222 P.3d 690.

Claim files are public records. — The worker's compensation division maintains
worker's compensation claim files in the course of its statutory function of adjudicating
claims filed by workers, which makes them public records within the meaning of state
freedom of information laws. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-16.

Supervisor informed at time of injury. — An employer had adequate notice of a
compensable injury where the claimant told his supervisor, at the time he was fitted for
hearing aids, that his hearing loss was work-related. The statute of limitations (Section
52-1-31 NMSA 1978) was tolled by the employer's subsequent failure to file a report of
the accident. Cisneros v. Molycorp, Inc., 1988-NMCA-080, 107 N.M. 788, 765 P.2d 761,
cert. denied, 107 N.M. 785, 765 P.2d 758 (decided under prior law).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation
§ 608.
Employer's tort liability to worker for concealing workplace hazard or nature or extent of
injury, 9 A.L.R.4th 778.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Herman v. Miners' Hosp., 807 P.2d 734 (N.M. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herman v. Miners' Hosp., 807 P.2d 734 (N.M. 1991). · cites it 6× “The examiner also concluded that the Hospital had actual notice of the accident and that the Hospital’s failure to file a first report of accident tolled the statute of limitations.”
Nelson v. Homier Distrib. Co., 2009-NMCA-125, 222 P.3d 690. · cites it 6× “Worker argues that the limitations period was tolled under Section 52-1-58 by Employer’s failure to file a report of the accident with the WCA.”
Cisneros v. Molycorp, Inc., 765 P.2d 761 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-58 (Repl. Pamp.1987). The hearing officer found that claimant’s action was not barred by the statute of limitations because of employer’s failure to file the report.”
Rhein v. ADT Auto., Inc., 1996-NMSC-067, 930 P.2d 783. · cites it 2× “Third, we cannot infer that ADT did not commit retaliatory discharge merely because they assisted Michaels in filing for worker’s compensation. Newman had attempted to talk Michaels out of filing for worker’s compensation, and when ADT did assist Michaels, they were merely…”
Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dep't, 2012-NMCA-015. · cites it 12× “Schultz argues that the WCJ’s determination was incorrect because the statute of limitations was tolled by two circumstances: (1) Employer’s conduct, which lulled Mrs.”
Catherine C. Finn v. Sean D. Tullock, 521 P.3d 1238 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff contends that LANS’s “complete failure to comply” with the WCA “renders it unable to benefit” from the Exclusivity Provision.”
Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dep't, 2012-NMCA-015, 1 N.M. Ct. App. 235. · cites it 7× “Schultz argues that the WCJ’s determination was incorrect because the statute of limitations was tolled by two circumstances: (1) Employer’s conduct, which lulled Mrs.”
N.M. Stat. § 52-1-58(A): 3 cases
Nelson v. Homier Distrib. Co., 2009-NMCA-125, 222 P.3d 690. “Worker argues that the limitations period was tolled under Section 52-1-58 by Employer’s failure to file a report of the accident with the WCA.”
Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dep't, 2012-NMCA-015. “Schultz argues that the WCJ’s determination was incorrect because the statute of limitations was tolled by two circumstances: (1) Employer’s conduct, which lulled Mrs.”
Catherine C. Finn v. Sean D. Tullock, 521 P.3d 1238 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “Plaintiff contends that LANS’s “complete failure to comply” with the WCA “renders it unable to benefit” from the Exclusivity Provision.”
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.