If an employee, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an injury on account of which the employee or, in the event of the employee's death, the employee's dependents would have been entitled to the benefits provided by the Workers' Compensation Act, had such injury occurred within this state, the employee or, in the event of the employee's death resulting from the injury, the employee's dependents shall be entitled to the benefits provided by that act; provided that at the time of the injury:

A. the employee's employment is principally localized in this state;

B. the employee is working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment not principally localized in any state;

C. the employee is working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment principally localized in another state whose workers' compensation law is not applicable to the employee's employer;

D. the employee is working under a contract of hire made in this state for employment outside the United States and Canada; or

E. the employee is an unpaid health professional deployed outside this state by the department of health in response to a request for emergency health personnel made pursuant to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact [12-10-14, 12-10-15 NMSA 1978].

History: 1953 Comp., § 59-10-33.1, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 241, § 1; 1989, ch. 263, § 40; 2007, ch. 328, § 2.

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1975, ch. 241, § 1, repealed 59-10-33.1, 1953 Comp., relating to extraterritorial coverage, and enacted a new section.

The 2007 amendment, effective June 15, 2007, added Subsection E.

Requirement that worker submit to drug and safety testing was a condition subsequent. — Where employer's rig master called worker and offered worker a job on a drilling rig in Pennsylvania; the rig master called worker from the rig master's home in New Mexico; the call was made to worker's home in New Mexico; employer had an office in New Mexico; the rig master traveled to worker's home to complete employment paperwork, including a job application and a safety application; after the meeting in worker's home and after worker had accepted the offer of employment, the rig master told the worker that the worker was hired; the rig master and worker drove together to Pennsylvania; worker understood that upon arrival in Pennsylvania, worker would have to take a drug test and complete additional paperwork before working; and after worker passed the drug screen and completed additional written safety tests, worker began work, the contract for employment was made in New Mexico and the requirement that worker submit to drug and safety testing upon arrival in Pennsylvania was a condition subsequent that did not affect the formation of the underlying employment contract in New Mexico. Potter v. Patterson UTI Drilling Co., 2010-NMCA-042, 148 N.M. 270, 234 P.3d 104.

This section is not ambiguous. New Mexico can provide extraterritorial coverage only if the employment is "localized" here or the "contract for hire" was formed in the state. Orcutt v. S & L Paint Contractors, 1990-NMCA-036, 109 N.M. 796, 791 P.2d 71.

Legislature desired to protect resident employees who were assigned by their employers to work outside of the state temporarily. Franklin v. Geo. P. Livermore, Inc., 1954-NMSC-054, 58 N.M. 349, 270 P.2d 983 (decided under prior law).

Need not work in New Mexico before being assigned elsewhere. — Claim that in order for employment relationship to exist in New Mexico the claimant must work for the employer in New Mexico before being assigned to work elsewhere is without merit. Franklin v. Geo. P. Livermore, Inc., 1954-NMSC-054, 58 N.M. 349, 270 P.2d 983 (decided under prior law).

No formality is required to accomplish effective hiring. Words or conduct may be sufficient. Roan v. D.W. Falls, Inc., 1963-NMSC-154, 72 N.M. 464, 384 P.2d 896 (decided under prior law).

Worker did not meet the "contract of hire" requirements under this section, where she admitted that no offer of employment was made by employer directly to her while she was in New Mexico, nor did she accept any offer of employment while in New Mexico, and worker first knew of her opportunity to work for employer after she arrived in Nevada, where she accepted an offer. Orcutt v. S & L Paint Contractors, 1990-NMCA-036, 109 N.M. 796, 791 P.2d 71.

Employment not permanent transfer where for particular job. — Employment of decedent to work in Nevada did not constitute a permanent assignment or transfer although decedent left New Mexico for several months at a time, since his employment was for a particular job which could not be classed as permanent employment. Roan v. D.W. Falls, Inc., 1963-NMSC-154, 72 N.M. 464, 384 P.2d 896 (decided under prior law).

Permanent assignment or transfer not effective. — Where as an incident of claimant's employment, claimant was furnished transportation from his parked private car in New Mexico, work having during day proceeded into Arizona, and employee was returned to his car in employer's truck at close of workday, permanent transfer from New Mexico to Arizona was not effective until claimant was returned to where he had left the private car in this state on his last day of work in New Mexico. La Rue v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 1953-NMSC-017, 57 N.M. 93, 254 P.2d 1059 (decided under prior law).

Where claimant never departed from New Mexico as a result of employment in Texas which was at most just a temporary job, there was no permanent assignment within the meaning of the proviso of the extraterritorial statute. Franklin v. Geo. P. Livermore, Inc., 1954-NMSC-054, 58 N.M. 349, 270 P.2d 983 (decided under prior law).

"Principally localized" under Section 52-1-67A(2) NMSA 1978. — A New Mexico resident injured at an Arizona construction site while working for a Colorado contractor was entitled to recovery by virtue of the fact that he was spending a substantial part of his working time for the contractor in New Mexico, since he had been working for the contractor in Arizona barely a month before the accident, and before starting work on the two Arizona jobs the claimant had worked for the contractor in New Mexico for more than a year with minimal interruption. Todacheene v. G & S Masonry, 1993-NMCA-126, 116 N.M. 478, 863 P.2d 1099, cert. denied sub nom. Todacheene v. Travelers Indem., 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1223.

Denial of recovery in Arizona not preventing recovery. — Denial of compensation under Arizona Workmen's Compensation Act did not prevent a recovery under the New Mexico act where an Arizona resident, while employed on hazardous occupation which had that day progressed from New Mexico into Arizona so that his actual work in New Mexico had been completed, was injured on or about the Arizona-New Mexico line while drawing pay and being returned in employer's truck to his own private transportation in New Mexico. La Rue v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 1953-NMSC-017, 57 N.M. 93, 254 P.2d 1059 (decided under prior law).

Nevada agency's findings properly denied full faith and credit. — Trial court did not err in failing to give full faith and credit to certain "findings and conclusions" of a workers' compensation agency in Nevada concerning the place of hire, or in failing to conclude that employer was estopped from denying coverage by representing to worker and a Nevada hospital after the injury that employer would provide coverage for medical expenses incurred for treatment. Orcutt v. S & L Paint Contractors, 1990-NMCA-036, 109 N.M. 796, 791 P.2d 71.

Law reviews. — For survey of 1990-91 workers' compensation law, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 845 (1992).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation §§ 22 to 24.