New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 52-1-65 (2026)
Credit for benefits furnished or paid under laws of other
✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
jurisdictions.
The payment or award of benefits under the workers' compensation law of another
state, territory, province or foreign nation to an employee or his dependents otherwise
entitled on account of such injury or death to the benefits of the Workers' Compensation
Act shall not be a bar to a claim for benefits under that act; provided that claim under
that act is filed within one year after such injury or death. If compensation is paid or
awarded under that act:
A. the medical and related benefits furnished or paid for by the employer under such
other workers' compensation law on account of such injury or death shall be credited
against the medical and related benefits to which the employee would have been
entitled under the Workers' Compensation Act had claim been made solely under that
act;
B. the total amount of all income benefits paid or awarded the employee under such
other workers' compensation law shall be credited against the total amount of income
benefits which would have been due the employee under the Workers' Compensation
Act had claim been made solely under that act; and
C. the total amount of death benefits paid or awarded under such other workers'
compensation law shall be credited against the total amount of death benefits due under
the Workers' Compensation Act.
History: 1953 Comp., § 59-10-33.2, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 241, § 2; 1989, ch. 263,
§ 41.
ANNOTATIONS
Tests for compensation award in one state as bar to award in another. — Whether
the payment of benefits under a workmen's (workers') compensation law of another
state shall bar the award of supplemental benefits under New Mexico law is dependent
upon the application of two tests as enunciated by the United States supreme court: (1)
the state first granting an award must announce in unmistakable language, either by
statute or judicial decision, that its award is intended to be final and conclusive of all the
employee's rights against the employer (and the insurer) growing out of the injury; that
the award under its statute is a completely exclusive remedy, precluding a subsequent
recovery under the laws of another state, and (2) the award in the first state must be res
judicata in that state. Chapman v. John St. John Drilling Co., 1963-NMSC-214, 73 N.M.
261, 387 P.2d 462 (decided under prior law).
Legislative intent to avoid "res judicata" complexities. — It is reasonable to
presume that in enacting this section, the legislature intended to avoid the complexities
involved in the application of "full faith and credit" and "res judicata" in workmen's
(workers') compensation cases. Webb v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 1981-NMCA-007, 95
N.M. 603, 624 P.2d 545.
Benefits neither barred nor offset by receipt of federal benefits. — Workmen's
(Workers') compensation benefits awarded under the New Mexico Workmen's
(Workers') Compensation Act are not barred or even offset by the receipt of any federal
benefits. Clemmer v. Carpenter, 1982-NMCA-098, 98 N.M. 302, 648 P.2d 341, cert.
denied, 98 N.M. 336, 648 P.2d 794.
Tolling of period to sue. — Voluntary payment of compensation benefits pursuant to
the law of another state is not in itself sufficient to toll the filing requirements of this
section; tolling of the time to sue provision depends upon whether a worker was
reasonably led to believe that New Mexico compensation would be paid. Ryan v.
Bruenger M. Trucking, 1983-NMCA-043, 100 N.M. 15, 665 P.2d 277, cert. denied, 100
N.M. 53, 665 P.2d 809.
Effect of award under another state's statute. — An award made under the
workmen's (workers') compensation statute of a state will not bar a proceeding against
the same person under the applicable statute of a sister state, unless the first state has
declared by statute or by court decision that is remedy, if pursued to an award, should
be exclusive. Webb v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 1981-NMCA-007, 95 N.M. 603, 624 P.2d
545.
A worker is not precluded from receiving New Mexico compensation benefits
merely because that worker has also received compensation benefits in another state.
Cawyer v. Cont'l Express Trucking, 1997-NMCA-008, 122 N.M. 819, 932 P.2d 509.
Under full faith and credit, New Mexico determines case where no res judicata. —
In view of the construction of its own judgments by the courts of Texas, the court
concludes that the appeal from the award of the Texas industrial accident board by the
claimant in this case denies that award the requisite finality to make it res judicata in
Texas, and thus the lower New Mexico court was free under the full faith and credit
clause to hear and determine the claim to compensation under the New Mexico
Workmen's (Workers') Compensation Law. Chapman v. John St. John Drilling Co.,
1963-NMSC-214, 73 N.M. 261, 387 P.2d 462 (decided under prior law).
An appeal from judgment prevents its operation as res judicata. Chapman v. John
St. John Drilling Co., 1963-NMSC-214, 73 N.M. 261, 387 P.2d 462 (decided under prior
law).
Federal question where one state refuses credit to judgment of another. — The
effect of a state's prior award under a workmen's (workers') compensation law on the
ability of a different state to award supplemental benefits under its own workmen's
(workers') compensation statute is a question involving the federal constitution as when
a state court refuses credit to the judgment of a sister state because of its opinion of the
nature of the cause of action or the judgment in which it is merged, an asserted federal
right is denied and the sufficiency of the grounds of denial are for supreme court of the
United States to decide. Chapman v. John St. John Drilling Co., 1963-NMSC-214, 73
N.M. 261, 387 P.2d 462 (decided under prior law).
Accepting Texas payments not waiving New Mexico rights. — Claimant did not
waive any rights he had under the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act by
accepting compensation payments under the Texas act. Franklin v. Geo. P. Livermore,
Inc., 1954-NMSC-054, 58 N.M. 349, 270 P.2d 983 (decided under prior law).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation
§§ 416, 417.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: Ryan v. Bruenger M. Trucking, 665 P.2d 277 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983).
Ryan v. Bruenger M. Trucking, 665 P.2d 277 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “Section 52-1-65, N.M.S.A.1978, provides that “payment or award of benefits under the workmen’s compensation law of another state .”
Saenz v. McCormick Constr. Co., 624 P.2d 551 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). “The summary judgment was based upon § 52-1-65, N.M.S.A.1978, which provides that a claim must be filed within one year of the date of injury when the claimant has received benefits under the workmen’s compensation law of another state.”
Clemmer Ex Rel. Clemmer v. Carpenter, 648 P.2d 341 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982). “Section 52-1-65, N.M.S.A.1978, states: The payment or award of benefits under the workmen’s compensation law of another state, territory, province or foreign nation to an employee or his dependents otherwise entitled on account of such injury or death to the benefits of this act…”
Burns v. Transcon Lines, 595 P.2d 761 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “The pertinent sections are §§ 52-1-65 and 52-1-66, N.M.S.A. 1978. Section 52-1-66 provides a method for the out-of-state employer to "be deemed to have secured the payment of compensation under this act" in a situation "[i]f an employee is entitled to the benefits of this act by…”
Montney v. State Ex Rel. State High. Dep't, 772 P.2d 360 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). “Other than excepting an award of compensation benefits made under the laws of another jurisdiction, the Workers’ Compensation Act in effect at the time of plaintiff’s disability was silent concerning the right of an employer to claim an offset or credit for other disability…”
Webb v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 624 P.2d 545 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). “Section 52-1-65, N.M.S.A. 1978 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act reads in pertinent part: The payment or award of benefits under the workmen’s compensation law of another state .”
Carter v. Mountain Bell, 727 P.2d 956 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “1985), says nothing about overlapping benefits or credits for defendant in this situation.”
Brewster v. Cooley & Assocs., 866 P.2d 409 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). “g, NMSA 1978, § 52-1-65 (Repl.Pamp.1991) (credit for benefits paid under laws of other jurisdictions); NMSA 1978, § 52-1-70 (Repl.”
Hammonds v. Freymiller Trucking, Inc., 851 P.2d 486 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). “We also note that New Mexico’s legislature has recognized that several states may assert jurisdiction over a single workers’ compensation claim and has thus allowed for such multiplicity by enacting Section 52-1-65. That statute provides that the payment or award of benefits…”
Cawyer v. Cont'l Express Trucking, 1997-NMCA-008, 932 P.2d 509. “We note that the statutes do not preclude a worker from receiving New Mexico compensation benefits merely because that worker has also received compensation benefits in another state.”
Jouett v. Tom Growney Equip. Co., 2004-NMCA-023, 85 P.3d 260. “1 (providing that employer’s right to reimbursement from third-party action brought by worker is to be diminished by percentage of fault attributed to employer); § 52-1-47(D) (providing second employer is entitled to reduction for compensation payments made by first employer to…”
Yates v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 879 P.2d 799 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). “See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-65 (Repl.Pamp.1991). Rather, one accident came fully under the jurisdiction of Arizona, and the later accident came fully under the jurisdiction of New Mexico.”
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.