In Armijo v. Save ' N Gain, 108 N.M. 281, 284, 771 P.2d 989, 992 (Ct. App. 1989), a workers' compensation case, our Supreme Court addressed whether a worker's due process rights were violated by the type of process given.
Citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the court concluded that "there is no deprivation of due process rights where a claimant has been accorded an opportunity to be heard through the informal hearing and affirmatively waived her right to a subsequent formal hearing" through a written acceptance of the recommended resolutions. Armijo, 108 N.M. at 284, 771 P.2d at 992.
The Court held that a party who desires to set aside an acceptance of a recommended resolution must apply to the WCA to set aside the acceptance within the same time limits set out in Section 52-5-5(C) for applying for leave to file a belated rejection.
In Armijo, we upheld a denial of a worker's application to withdraw an acceptance because it was filed nine weeks after she had filed her acceptance of the recommended resolution. Id.
Armijo establishes that an application to withdraw an acceptance pursuant to Section 52-5-5(C) is subject to the same deadline as an application for leave to file a belated rejection. Id. Under Armijo, Employer's March 29, 2002, Application was clearly untimely under Section 52-5-5(C). Id.