Jackson acknowledged during his administrative hearing before the WCA, if a construction-related accident occurred and his subcontractor was not in compliance with the Act, JCI as general contractor could be held liable to the injured worker under certain circumstances. Related to this point, Mr. Jackson also acknowledged that he did not routinely execute formal contracts with his subcontractors, nor did he ensure definitively that his subcontractors carried the required workers’ compensation coverage. Second, situations can develop between a general contractor and a subcontractor, such that the general contractor inadvertently becomes a “constructive employer” of the subcontractor’s employees. See Harger v. Structural Servs., Inc., 121 N.M 657, 660-61, 916 P.2d 1324, 1327-28 (1996) (<HOLDING>). {17} With respect to JCI’s assertion that our
recognizing theory of constructive possession holding naf employees were not employees within the appeal provisions of the civil service reform act of 1978 and therefore they were not entitled to appeal their terminations to the mspb holding that nmsa 1978 section 411111 replpamp1986 the damage cap in the dramshop act was unconstitutional recognizing the creation of constructive employees under nmsa 1978 section 52122 1989 holding that the commission had jurisdiction to review rates and thus delay implementation of nmsa 1978 section 623a18a 1999 replaced by section 62645 in 2003 because the removal of franchise fee charges from the rate base necessarily required a modification of rates