New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 52-1-69 (2026)
Repealed.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
ANNOTATIONS Repeals. — Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 102 repealed 52-1-69 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1959, ch. 67, § 29, relating to limitation on filing claims, effective May 21, 1986. For present comparable provisions, see 52-5-18 NMSA 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1979–1988 · leading case: Zamora Ex Rel. Zamora v. CDK Contracting Co., 742 P.2d 521 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987).
Zamora Ex Rel. Zamora v. CDK Contracting Co., 742 P.2d 521 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). “The trial court also awarded costs and attorney fees, and retained jurisdiction to approve plaintiff’s home purchasing plan and oversee investment to assure use for the children.”
Maitlen v. Getty Oil Co., 733 P.2d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). “This workmen’s compensation case requires us to determine (1) whether a dismissal without prejudice on the ground the complaint is premature is a final, appeal-able order, and (2) whether NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-69, prohibiting claims by workers who are receiving maximum…”
Rollins v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 595 P.2d 765 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “The question presented by defendants is: Was plaintiff's claim for the first injury filed prematurely inasmuch as plaintiff was receiving maximum compensation benefits for the second injury, both arising out of the same employment and the same employer? The answer is "yes.”
Paternoster v. La Cuesta Cabinets, Inc., 689 P.2d 289 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). “Section 52-1-69 provides: No claim shall be filed by any workman who is receiving maximum compensation benefits; provided, however, a workman claiming additional compensation benefits, because of his employer’s alleged failure to provide a safety device, may file suit therefor,…”
Minnerup v. Stewart Bros. Drilling Co., 603 P.2d 300 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “In his opening statement, plaintiff claimed the “correct amount” should have been $124.”
Romero v. S. S. Kresge Co., 623 P.2d 998 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). ““Compensation benefits,” means those benefits granted under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
Garcia v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 663 P.2d 1198 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “APS filed its motion for summary judgment on grounds of premature filing of plaintiff’s claim against the employer as set out in § 52-1-69, N.M.S.A.1978, and that all reasonable medical and rehabilitational services were being provided.”
Fields v. D & R Tank & Equip. Co., 703 P.2d 918 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). “See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-69. His contention is that he may recover common law damages from his employer under NMSA 1978, Section 52-l-49(B) for the physicians’ malpractice, and that Section 52-1-69 is not applicable.”
Neumann v. A.S. Horner, Inc., 661 P.2d 503 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “Plaintiff contends that the failed “friendly” suit remained viable as a suit for a lump-sum settlement.”
Raines v. W.A. Klinger & Sons, 763 P.2d 684 (N.M. 1988). “The district court dismissed the motion without prejudice, citing NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-69 1 as a basis for denial, and reciting that the motion was premature because (according to the docketing statement and certiorari petition) petitioner already was receiving maximum…”
Patterson v. City of Albuquerque, 661 P.2d 1331 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “Defendant moved to dismiss alleging the claim was premature under § 52-1-69, N.M.S.A. 1978. The motion stated: “Plaintiff has never been denied weekly compensation benefits nor medical payments .”
Rodriguez v. X-Pert Well Serv., Inc., 759 P.2d 1010 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). “See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-69 (see NMSA 1978, § 52-5-18 (Repl.”
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.