N.M. Stat. § 52-5-18 (2026)

No additional claim shall be filed by any worker who is receiving maximum
compensation except that a worker claiming additional compensation because of his
employer's alleged failure to provide a safety device may file claim for that
compensation, but in that event, only the safety devices issue may be determined in the
claim.

History: Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 44; 1989, ch. 263, § 86.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Purpose of section is to save the employer the expense and cost of litigation. Armijo v.
Co-Con Constr. Co., 1978-NMCA-106, 92 N.M. 295, 587 P.2d 442, cert. denied, 92
N.M. 260, 586 P.2d 1089.

Where maximum compensation benefits are being paid, this section bars a suit to
establish liability for compensation. Arther v. Western Co. of N. Am., 1975-NMCA-082,
88 N.M. 157, 538 P.2d 799, cert. denied, 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248.

One purpose of section is to bar suit to establish liability for compensation. Rollins v.
Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 92 N.M. 795, 595 P.2d 765 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 92 N.M.
675, 593 P.2d 1078 (1979).
Section applicable when maximum compensation benefits are being paid by
reason of a second injury. Rollins v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 1979-NMCA-039, 92 N.M.
795, 595 P.2d 765, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 675, 593 P.2d 1078.

Not applicable where liability admitted. — This section bars a suit to establish liability
for compensation, and it was not applicable where liability was admitted by payment of
workmen's (workers') compensation benefits. Briscoe v. Hydro Conduit Corp., 1975-
NMCA-147, 88 N.M. 568, 544 P.2d 283.

"No claim shall be filed" means any workman (worker) receiving maximum
compensation benefits is totally disabled and shall not file a claim regardless of what
accidental injury or injuries caused total disability. Rollins v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs.,
1979-NMCA-039, 92 N.M. 795, 595 P.2d 765, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 675, 593 P.2d
1078.

"Maximum compensation benefits" means benefits paid for total disability. Rollins v.
Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 1979-NMCA-039, 92 N.M. 795, 595 P.2d 765, cert. denied, 92
N.M. 675, 593 P.2d 1078.

Employee's claim for first injury filed prematurely where she is receiving maximum
compensation benefits for a second injury, both arising out of the same employment
and the same employer. Rollins v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 1979-NMCA-039, 92 N.M.
795, 595 P.2d 765, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 675, 593 P.2d 1078.

Seeking lump sum while receiving installments. — Injured worker was not precluded
from filing a petition for a hearing upon the appropriateness of a lump sum award even
while he was receiving maximum compensation benefits in periodic installments. Raines
v. W.A. Klinger & Sons, 1988-NMSC-083, 107 N.M. 668, 763 P.2d 684.

Liability admitted by payment of maximum compensation benefits. — It has been
suggested that when liability is established, a claim filed for a lump-sum award is not
premature. Rollins v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 1979-NMCA-039, 92 N.M. 795, 595 P.2d
765, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 675, 593 P.2d 1078.

When maximum compensation benefits are refused or reduced, a workman
(worker) can then file a claim for maximum compensation benefits to establish total
disability arising out of the original and any subsequent accidental injuries. Rollins v.
Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 1979-NMCA-039, 92 N.M. 795, 595 P.2d 765, cert. denied, 92
N.M. 675, 593 P.2d 1078.

Claimant not prevented from moving for change in compensation as the district
court has jurisdiction, when compensation is being paid, to decrease, increase or
terminate the payments, and to order a lump-sum settlement. Livingston v. Loffland
Bros., 1974-NMCA-047, 86 N.M. 375, 524 P.2d 991, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 372, 524
P.2d 988 (decided under prior law).
Claim based upon employer's miscalculation becomes moot upon payment of
arrearages. — A claim based on the employer's miscalculation of the amount of weekly
benefits becomes moot where liability for that miscalculation is extinguished by the
payment of arrearages. Patterson v. City of Albuquerque, 1983-NMCA-037, 99 N.M.
632, 661 P.2d 1331, cert. denied, 99 N.M. 644, 662 P.2d 645.

Insurer's unauthorized variation on statutory payment scheme will not preclude
payment of additional benefits. — Claimant receiving scheduled injury benefits based
on 60% loss of use of nondexterous hand was not barred from seeking additional
compensation for psychiatric injury by insurer's payment of maximum benefits for 60%
of required period rather than, as required by statute, payment of 60% of maximum
benefits for required period. Paternoster v. La Cuesta Cabinets, Inc., 1984-NMCA-097,
101 N.M. 773, 689 P.2d 289.

Error in dismissing action where employer failed to pay medical bill. — Medical
payments have been ruled to be compensation for the purpose of allowing attorney fees
under Section 52-1-54 NMSA 1978, and if they are compensation for one purpose they
should be compensation for all purposes. Since plaintiff's employer had failed to pay a
medical bill, the trial court erred in dismissing his action alleging total disability and
seeking a lump-sum award on grounds of premature filing. Briscoe v. Hydro Conduit
Corp., 1975-NMCA-147, 88 N.M. 568, 544 P.2d 283.