N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 52 / Article 5
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 52-5-14 (2026)

Order of approval.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. If the workers' compensation judge finds the lump-sum payment agreement to be
fair, equitable and consistent with provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act
[Chapter 52, Article 1 NMSA 1978] or the New Mexico Occupational Disease
Disablement Law [52-3-1 NMSA 1978], he shall approve the agreement by order, and
the order shall not be set aside or modified except as provided in the applicable law.
The workers' compensation judge may refuse to approve a settlement if he does not
believe that it provides substantial justice to the parties.

    B. In making lump-sum settlements, the payment due the worker or his dependents
shall not be discounted at a greater rate than a sum equal to the present value of all
future payments of compensation benefits computed at a five percent discount
compounded annually.

History: Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 40; 1989, ch. 263, § 82; 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 58.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

The 1990 (2nd S.S.) amendment, effective January 1, 1991, deleted the former first
sentence of Subsection B regarding compensation converted into lump sum settlement
by agreement.

Jurisdiction pending appeal. — The workers' compensation division did not have
jurisdiction to enter an order of settlement in a case where an appeal was pending.
Riesenecker v. Arkansas. Best Freight Sys., 1990-NMCA-100, 110 N.M. 451, 796 P.2d
1147.
Approval by workers' compensation judge in accordance with requirements of
Subsection A of this section and Section 52-5-13 NMSA 1978 is necessary to assure
adherence to the policies established by the legislature favoring periodic payments over
lump sum payments, requiring careful effort to assure that a worker or the dependents
understand the consequences of replacing periodic payments with a discounted lump
sum amount, and assuring that the settlement is fair, equitable, and consistent with the
Worker's Compensation Act. Paradiso v. Tipps Equip., 2004-NMCA-009, 134 N.M. 814,
82 P.3d 985, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-001.

Stipulated compensation order that failed to comply with approval process was
invalid and unenforceable. — Where, in 2004, the parties entered into a stipulated
compensation order (SCO) to settle a dispute regarding worker’s entitlement to workers’
compensation benefits as the result of an accident and injuries to worker’s back that
occurred in 2002, and where there was no hearing by the workers’ compensation judge
(WCJ) to approve the provisions of the SCO or otherwise confirm worker’s knowledge of
the partial lump-sum settlement or any of the material facts contained therein, and
where, in 2014, employer filed a motion for a supplemental compensation order
(MSCO), the WCJ erred in granting the MSCO and in approving the SCO under 52-5-13
and -14 NMSA 1978, because the SCO was not in compliance with 52-5-12(C) NMSA
1978, and therefore the WCJ had no authority to approve the SCO containing a partial
lump-sum payment of benefits; the SCO was invalid and unenforceable. Baca v. State,
2017-NMCA-076, cert. denied.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1988–2019 · leading case: Rojo v. Loeper Landscaping, Inc., 759 P.2d 194 (N.M. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rojo v. Loeper Landscaping, Inc., 759 P.2d 194 (N.M. 1988). · cites it 54× “" NMSA 1978, § 52-5-14(A) (Repl. Pamp. 1987).”
Paradiso v. Tipps Equip., 82 P.3d 985 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “In addition, the WCJ can approve the lump sum payment agreement only if the WCJ finds it “to be fair, equitable and consistent with provisions of the .”
Cruz v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 889 P.2d 1223 (N.M. 1995). · cites it 2× “” Section 52-5-14(A); accord Rojo, 107 N.M.”
Riesenecker v. Arkansas Best Freight Sys., 796 P.2d 1147 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “PUBLICATION OF THE OPINION Claimant contends that we should withdraw our opinion because the case was moot when we filed the opinion.”
Cabazos v. Calloway Constr., 879 P.2d 1217 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “ubsection C does not prohibit multiple partial lump-sum payments, provided that those payments are in an amount necessary to pay debts accumulated during the period of disability, nevertheless applications for such payments are subject to the limitations expressly set forth in…”
Sommerville v. Sw. Firebird, 188 P.3d 1147 (N.M. 2008). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 52-5-14(A) (1990); see also Paradiso v.”
Quintana v. Ilfelds, 867 P.2d 1218 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Further, Subsection B of Section 52-5-14 places a limit on the amount of discount, but fails to make clear whether such discount applies equally to full and partial lump sum payments.”
Ramirez v. Johnny's Roofing, Inc., 1999 NMCA 038 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 52-5-14(A) (1990). Thus, such agreements bind the parties even more strongly than would the common law contracts.”
Baca v. State (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “Instead, the parties primarily argue about the approval process for 5 lump-sum payments, the disputed application of Sommerville, and any requirements 6 for a formal hearing to approve lump-sum payments under Section 52-5-13 and 7 Section 52-5-14. 8 {9} The second issue we…”
Aragon v. Wilson (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Additionally, NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-14(A) (1990) states that “[i]f the [WCJ] finds the lump-sum payment agreement to be fair, equitable and consistent with provisions of the [WCA] .”
Lucero v. First Fleet (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “and the employer 13 shall be presented to the [WCJ] for approval upon a joint petition signed by all parties 14 and verified by the worker or his dependents.”
Fliss v. Lota Burger (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “If the first step is met, then the second step requires that the WCJ 1) 15 determine whether the terms and conditions of the proposed lump sum settlement are 16 fully understood by the worker pursuant to Section 52-1-13, and 2) pursuant to 17 Section 52-5-14, determine whether…”
— N.M. Stat. § 52-5-14(A) — 10 cases
Rojo v. Loeper Landscaping, Inc., 759 P.2d 194 (N.M. 1988). “" NMSA 1978, § 52-5-14(A) (Repl. Pamp. 1987).”
Paradiso v. Tipps Equip., 82 P.3d 985 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “In addition, the WCJ can approve the lump sum payment agreement only if the WCJ finds it “to be fair, equitable and consistent with provisions of the .”
Cruz v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 889 P.2d 1223 (N.M. 1995). “” Section 52-5-14(A); accord Rojo, 107 N.M.”
Cabazos v. Calloway Constr., 879 P.2d 1217 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). “ubsection C does not prohibit multiple partial lump-sum payments, provided that those payments are in an amount necessary to pay debts accumulated during the period of disability, nevertheless applications for such payments are subject to the limitations expressly set forth in…”
Sommerville v. Sw. Firebird, 188 P.3d 1147 (N.M. 2008). “” NMSA 1978, § 52-5-14(A) (1990); see also Paradiso v.”
— N.M. Stat. § 52-5-14(B) — 2 cases
Rojo v. Loeper Landscaping, Inc., 759 P.2d 194 (N.M. 1988). “" NMSA 1978, § 52-5-14(A) (Repl. Pamp. 1987).”
Riesenecker v. Arkansas Best Freight Sys., 796 P.2d 1147 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). “PUBLICATION OF THE OPINION Claimant contends that we should withdraw our opinion because the case was moot when we filed the opinion.”
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.