the argument that the purchasing of a workers’ compensation insurance policy implicitly requires a tribe or tribal entity to surrender to state court jurisdiction). This Court has held that even participation in the state’s workers’ compensation program does not constitute an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Sanchez, 2005-NMCA-003, ¶ 18, 136 N.M. 682, 104 P.3d 548 (“[W]aivers of sovereign immunity cannot be created by implication through activities such as participation in the state’s workers’ compensation program.”). {18} We also note that even if, as Worker argues, the Tribe did not have a workers’ compensation program in place when he was injured, the Compact still does not provide a private right of action. See Martinez, 2009-NMCA-087, ¶¶ 25-26, 146 N.M. 735, 215 P.3d 44 (<HOLDING>). {19} Finally, Worker argues that the Tribe’s
holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim holding that the tribes elected council had jurisdiction under 25 usc  2710d7aii to bring a suit against the tribes appointed council to enjoin the appointed councils alleged illegitimate operation of a casino under the terms of the tribes compact with the state of iowa recognizing private right of action holding that the private right of action to which tribes agreed in the compact pertains only to visitors and is inapplicable to workers compensation disputes holding that a private right of action exists