New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 52-3-33 (2026)

Occupational diseases; definition.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law, "occupational
disease" includes any disease peculiar to the occupation in which the employee was
engaged and due to causes in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment as such
and includes any disease due to, or attributable to, exposure to or contact with any
radioactive material by an employee in the course of his employment.

History: 1953 Comp., § 59-11-21, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 239, § 7.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

An occupational disease must result from the occupation, not the workplace, in
order to be compensable. Chadwick v. Public Serv. Co., 1986-NMCA-123, 105 N.M.
272, 731 P.2d 968, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 290, 731 P.2d 1334 (1987).

Disease must be natural incident of particular occupation. — To come within the
definition, an occupational disease must be a disease which is a natural incident of a
particular occupation, and must attach to that occupation a hazard which distinguishes it
from the usual run of occupations and is in excess of that attending employment in
general. Marable v. Singer Bus. Machs., 1978-NMCA-113, 92 N.M. 261, 586 P.2d 1090.

Meaning of "peculiar to". — The phrase "peculiar to" is not used in the sense that the
disease must be one which originates exclusively from the particular kind of
employment in which the employee is engaged, but rather in the sense that the
conditions of that employment must result in a hazard which distinguishes it in character
from the general run of occupations. Martinez v. University of Cal., 1979-NMSC-073, 93
N.M. 455, 601 P.2d 425.

Occupational disease does not include a disease which results from peculiar
conditions surrounding the workmen's ( workers') employment as long as the nature of
that work is not more likely to cause the disability than other kinds of employment
carried on under the same conditions. Marable v. Singer Bus. Machs., 1978-NMCA-113,
92 N.M. 261, 586 P.2d 1090.
A gradual, noise-induced hearing loss is an accidental injury compensable under
Section 52-1-28 NMSA 1978 of the Workers' Compensation Act, and is not an
occupational disease. 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.

An allergy may be an occupational disease; whether it is an occupational disease
depends upon whether there is a recognizable link between the disease and some
distinctive feature of the claimant's job. Chadwick v. Public Serv. Co., 1986-NMCA-123,
105 N.M. 272, 731 P.2d 968, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 290, 731 P.2d 1334 (1987).

Allergic reaction may be compensable under the Workmen's (Workers')
Compensation Act rather than as an occupational disease. Chadwick v. Public Serv.
Co., 1986-NMCA-123, 105 N.M. 272, 731 P.2d 968, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 290, 731
P.2d 1334 (1987).

Allergy caused by airborne substances at a generating station is not a distinctive
feature of the work of a mechanic, and the risk of such a disease is not a hazard
common to a mechanic's job. Chadwick v. Public Serv. Co., 1986-NMCA-123, 105 N.M.
272, 731 P.2d 968, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 290, 731 P.2d 1334 (1987).

Allergic disorder which resulted from an employee's inhalation of paint fumes
while on the job qualified as an occupational disease as defined in this section, even
where plaintiff was allergic to substances found in other occupations besides painting,
and where other employees were exposed to fumes but did not become ill. Herrera v.
Fluor Utah, Inc., 1976-NMCA-045, 89 N.M. 245, 550 P.2d 144, cert. denied, 89 N.M.
321, 551 P.2d 1368.

Female employee cannot recover for occupational disease caused by harassment
by male employees, since it is not a natural incident of the employment. It is not linked
with a process used by the employer by which the disease is caused; therefore, it is not
an occupational disease. Marable v. Singer Bus. Machs., 1978-NMCA-113, 92 N.M.
261, 586 P.2d 1090.

Law reviews. — For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Workmen's
Compensation," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 235 (1981).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation
§§ 326, 327.

Mental disorders as compensable under workmen's compensation acts, 97 A.L.R.3d
161.

Cancer as compensable under workers' compensation acts, 19 A.L.R.4th 639.

Workers' compensation: Lyme disease, 22 A.L.R.5th 246.
99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 169.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1979–2012 · leading case: Martinez v. Univ. of California, 601 P.2d 425 (N.M. 1979).
Martinez v. Univ. of California, 601 P.2d 425 (N.M. 1979). · cites it 5× “The court concluded that petitioner’s neurosis is an occupational disease within the meaning of § 52-3-33, and that petitioner suffers from a disablement within the meaning of § 52-3-4(A).”
Buchanan v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 908 P.2d 242 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “The section of the Occupational Disease Law addressing causation, Section 52-3-32 reads as follows: The occupational diseases defined in Section 52-3-33 NMSA 1978 shall be deemed to arise out of the employment only if there is a direct causal connection between the conditions…”
Cisneros v. Molycorp, Inc., 765 P.2d 761 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 52-3-33 (Repl.Pamp.1987). An “occupational disease” is a natural incident of a particular occupation; the hazard distinguishes that occupation from others and is in excess of that attending employment in general.”
Chadwick v. Pub. Serv. Co. of NM, 731 P.2d 968 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Nevertheless, we conclude that the opinion contains language that is consistent with NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-33, and a definition that we should adopt.”
Bryant v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Corp., 853 P.2d 753 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 40, 43 (1967)); see § 52-3-33. This Court has repeatedly affirmed that an allergy may be compensable under the ODDL.”
Anderson v. Brinkhoff, 859 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1993). “”); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 52-3-33 (1991) (“ ‘[Occupational disease’ includes any disease peculiar to the occupation in which the employee was engaged and due to causes in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment as such_”); N.”
Castillo v. Caprock Pipe & Supply, Inc., 2012 NMCA 85 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-32 (1989) states what is required to establish causation: The occupational diseases defined in [NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-33 (1973)] shall be deemed to arise out of the employment only if there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under…”
Castillo v. Caprock Pipe & Supply, Inc., 2012 NMCA 085 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-32 (1989) states what is required to establish causation: The occupational diseases defined in [NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-33 (1973)] shall be deemed to arise out of the employment only if there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under…”
Herrera v. Eberline Servs. (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “4 Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-33 (1973), 5 “occupational disease” includes any disease peculiar to the occupation 6 in which the employee was engaged and due to causes in excess of the 7 ordinary hazards of employment as such and includes any disease due to, 8 or…”
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.