This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JOHN CONTRERAS, 3 Worker-Appellant, 4 vs. No. 33,577

5 MILLER BONDED, INC., and MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO INC. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION GROUP FUND, 10 Employer/Insurer-Appellee.

11 APPEAL FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINSTRATION Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge The Gilpin Law Firm, LLC Donald Gilpin Albuquerque, NM for Worker-Appellant Maestas & Suggett, P.C.

19 Paul Maestas Albuquerque, NM for Employer/Insurer-Appellee 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge.

3 {1} Worker has appealed from an order denying his claim for benefits. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the WCJ’s determination. Worker has filed a memorandum in opposition.

6 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

7 {2} As previously described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, where causation is disputed, expert medical testimony must be presented in support of any claim. See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-28(B) (1987) (“In all cases where the employer or his insurance carrier deny that an alleged disability is a natural and direct result of the accident, the worker must establish that causal connection as a probability by expert testimony of a health care provider . . . testifying within the area of his expertise.”); Gonzales v. Stanke-Brown & Associates, Inc., 1982-NMCA-109, ¶ 14, 98 N.M. 379, 648 P.2d 1192 (“This causation requirement applies to any claim for worker’s compensation[.]”). In this case, although causation was disputed, Worker presented no expert medical testimony in support of his claims. [MIO 1] This is a fatal deficiency. Although Worker invites this Court to depart from the foregoing principles, and to “consider his testimony along with the medical diagnostic tests” in

1 order to infer the requisite link between his injury and his disability, [MIO 3] we decline the invitation. See generally State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 134 3 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (“[W]hen a statute contains language which is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Insofar as Worker bore the burden of establishing causation, see id., we are similarly unpersuaded that it was incumbent upon Employer/Insurer to disprove causation. [MIO 4] {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.

10 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 _____________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge WE CONCUR:

14 __________________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

16 __________________________________ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge