N.M. Stat. § 52-5-1 (2026)

It is the intent of the legislature in creating the workers' compensation administration
that the laws administered by it to provide a workers' benefit system be interpreted to
assure the quick and efficient delivery of indemnity and medical benefits to injured and
disabled workers at a reasonable cost to the employers who are subject to the
provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act [Chapter 52, Article 1 NMSA 1978] and
the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law [52-3-1 NMSA 1978]. It is the
specific intent of the legislature that benefit claims cases be decided on their merits and
that the common law rule of "liberal construction" based on the supposed "remedial"
basis of workers' benefits legislation shall not apply in these cases. The workers' benefit
system in New Mexico is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and
defenses by employers and employees alike. Accordingly, the legislature declares that
the Workers' Compensation Act and the New Mexico Occupational Disease
Disablement Law are not remedial in any sense and are not to be given a broad liberal
construction in favor of the claimant or employee on the one hand, nor are the rights
and interests of the employer to be favored over those of the employee on the other
hand.

History: 1978 Comp., § 52-5-1, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 342, § 30; 1989, ch. 263, §
70; 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 53.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1987, ch. 342, § 30 repealed former 52-5-1
NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 27, relating to creation of workmen's
compensation administration, effective July 1, 1987, and enacted a new 52-5-1 NMSA
1978.
Cross references. — For authority to establish workers' compensation division, see
N.M. Const., art. III, § 1.

The 1990 (2nd S.S.) amendment, effective January 1, 1991, substituted
"administration" for "division of the labor department" near the beginning of the first
sentence.

Appropriations. — Laws 1990, ch. 65, § 3, effective May 16, 1990, appropriated
$750,000 from the workers' compensation administration fund to the workers'
compensation division of the labor department for expenditure in the seventy-ninth fiscal
year for the purpose of providing for the review and other services provided pursuant to
52-4-2 and 52-4-3 NMSA 1978.

Constitutionality. — This section is a statement of legislative intent; legislature did not
intend the courts to disregard precedent by applying a liberal construction, and therefore
this section does not violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
Benavides v. Eastern N.M. Med. Ctr., 2014-NMSC-037, rev’g No. 32,450, mem. Op.
(N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013) (non-precedential).

Workers' Compensation Act fulfills its purpose through a bargain in which an
injured worker gives up his or her right to sue the employer for damages in return for an
expedient settlement covering medical expenses and wage benefits, while the employer
gives up her defenses in return for immunity from a tort claim. Morales v. Reynolds,
2004-NMCA-098, 136 N.M. 280, 97 P.3d 612, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-008, 136
N.M. 492, 100 P.3d 197.

Legislative intent. — This section calls for a balanced and evenhanded construction of
the Workers' Compensation Act. Gomez v. B.E. Harvey Gin Corp., 1990-NMSC-057,
110 N.M. 100, 792 P.2d 1143.

The legislature's rejection of the rule of liberal construction of the Workers'
Compensation Act in favor of workers does not preclude adoption of the traveling-
employee rule. Ramirez v. Dawson Prod. Partners, Inc., 2000-NMCA-011, 128 N.M.
601, 995 P.2d 1043.

This section is a prospectively applicable statement of legislative intent that neither
attempts nor purports to retroactively dismantle established workers' compensation
case law enunciated under the rule of liberal construction. Garcia v. Mt. Taylor Millwork,
Inc., 1989-NMCA-100, 111 N.M. 17, 801 P.2d 87, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282, 795 P.2d
87.

This section is a prospective statement of legislative intent which leaves intact the
premises exception to the going and coming rule adopted in Dupper v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., 1987-NMSC-007, 105 N.M. 503, 734 P.2d 743. Garcia v. Mt. Taylor Millwork, Inc.,
1989-NMCA-100, 111 N.M. 17, 801 P.2d 87, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282, 795 P.2d 87.
The decision in this case comports with the legislative intent expressed in this section.
Jackson v. K & M Constr., 2004-NMCA-082, 136 N.M. 94, 94 P.3d 837, cert. denied,
2004-NMCERT-007, 136 N.M. 452, 99 P.3d 1164.

All claims to be filed with division. — All claims, regardless of when the injury or
death may have occurred, shall be filed with the workmen's (workers') compensation
administration (now the workers' compensation division). Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 1986-
NMSC-075, 104 N.M. 751, 726 P.2d 1381.

Law reviews. — For case note, "WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW: A Clinical
Psychologist Is Qualified to Give Expert Medical Testimony Regarding Causation:
Madrid v. Univ. of California, d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory," see 18 N.M.L.
Rev. 637 (1988).

For annual survey of New Mexico Workers' Compensation Law, see 20 N.M.L. Rev. 459
(1990).

For note, "Workers' Compensation Law - Bad Faith Refusal of an Insurer To Pay
Workers' Compensation Benefits: Russell v. Protective Insurance Company," see 20
N.M.L. Rev. 757 (1990).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation
§§ 55 to 58.

100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation §§ 369 to 377.