![Quintana V. Trotz Construction Co.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Quintana V. Trotz Construction Co.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Quintana V. Trotz Construction Co.
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Description de l’éditeur
I agree with Justice CARMODY that there is an absence of substantial medical evidence to support a judgment awarding compensation for any disability extending beyond the specific body member. My disagreement with the majority, however, is more basic. The trial court specifically found that the injury was limited to the workman's left foot and ankle, and that any bodily impairment or disability extending beyond the specific body member resulted solely from the injury to the foot and ankle. Section 59-10-18.4, N.M.S.A.1953, expressly limits a compensation award for all disability resulting from an injury to a specific body member to the amount specified in § 59-10-18.4(a), N.M.S.A.1953. For my interpretation of the statute, see my dissents in Webb v. Hamilton, 78 N.M. 647, 436 P.2d 507; Baker v. Shufflebarger, 78 N.M. 642, 436 P.2d 502, both filed January 22, 1968; and in Yanez v. Skousen Constr. Co., 78 N.M. 756, 438 P.2d 166, filed this date.