Industrial Commission


ALL LINKS ON THIS PAGE ARE PDF FILES AND WILL REQUIRE ADOBE ACROBAT READER



November 7, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 06-0011 . . . . . . . Morse v. ICA/UPS


Did the Administrative Law Judge err by failing to consider the claimant’s prospective wages from a new employer, for whom she had not yet begun to work, in setting the average monthly wage?

October 26, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0141 . . . . . . Martinez v. ICA/SYSCO

1.     Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction when a Petition for Special Action in an ICA case is filed in the wrong court?  

October 17, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0133 . . . . . . . Western Water v. ICA/Young

Does the one-year limitations period for filing a workers' compensation claim prevent the Industrial Commission of Arizona from acquiring jurisdiction over an employer by a joinder motion filed by the Special Fund after the limitations period has expired?

August 10, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0069 . . . . . . Gamez v. ICA/Thunderbird

1.    In a case with conflicting medical evidence, did the administrative law judge err in denying benefits?

2. Does the current legislative scheme allow an undocumented immigrant to be treated as an employee for purposes of the Arizona Workers' Compensation Act? 

July 27, 2006 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0058 . . . . . . Schuck v. ICA/Bojko

1.    Does the equal measure rule preclude consideration of a specific type of employment available to Claimant post-injury (in this case, self-employment) that was not engaged in pre-injury?

2. Must actual earnings be considered, in determining loss of earning capacity, when there is evidence that the wages are not earned in the open labor market?

3. In a case involving self-employment, must the ALJ consider whether profits generated reflect “actual earnings” as contrasted with profits generated independent of a claimant’s efforts?

October 27, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 04-0092 . . . . . . . . . . . Martens v. ICA/AZ Dept. of Corrections

1. Pursuant to statute, does a worker’s compensation claimant have a right to bring a third party, other than the claimant’s physician, to an IME or an IPE requested by her carrier?

2. Does an administrative law judge have authority to allow a third party other than the claimant’s physician be present during a requested IME or IPE to “protect a claimant from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense?”

April 21, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   IC 02-0084 . . . . . . . . . . .  Naslund v. ICA/Maricopa County

Does the 1999 amendment to A.R.S. section 23-1044(A), which allows employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers to reduce an injured employee's temporary partial disability benefits if that person is also receiving retirement or pension benefits resulting from prior work for the same employer, violate Article 18, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution?

February 8, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IC 04-0016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kelly Services v. ICA/Gross

Is a workers’ compensation claimant’s "area of residence" necessarily limited to the community in which he resides for the purpose of determining the relevant labor market?

October 20, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 03-0041 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . Komalestewa v. Stoneville

1.    Do A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) and (H)(2) change the standard to determine whether a work-related injury is noncompensable when the employee’s use of alcohol or drugs contributed to the injury?

2.    Do A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) and (H)(2), which bar workers’ compensation benefits for injuries in which the employee’s use of alcohol or unlawful use of a controlled substance was a substantial contributing cause, violate Article 18, Section 8, of the Arizona Constitution by depriving workers of compensatory benefits for injuries “caused in whole, or in part, or [] contributed to, by a necessary risk or danger of such employment?

May 20, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . .  .. . . . . .  IC 01-0117 . . . . . . . . . .  Grammatico v. AROK

Does A.R.S. § 23-1021(D), which applies to injuries suffered in workplaces that implement a qualified drug-free workplace policy, violate Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution by depriving workers of compensatory benefits for injuries "caused in whole, or in part, or . . . contributed to" by necessary employment risks and dangers?

June 17, 2003.......................................IC 02-0088............................Anderson v. Pete King


Does A.R.S. § 23-1031 apply to a claimant whose benefit award was final prior to December 1,
1997 but whose criminal act was committed after that date?

February 11, 2003.................................IC 02-0072...................................Young v. Peach Springs


Does an out-of-state industrial injury which results in permanent impairment and an award of permanent
benefits, which injury would have been a scheduled injury had it occurred in Arizona, convert
a subsequent Arizona scheduled injury into an unscheduled injury for purposes of determining
permanent disability benefits?

January 7, 2003  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0108  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASARCO v. Duke

When a notice of benefits is contradicted by something outside of the record, does the Roseberry line of cases prevent it from becoming final and res judicata?

December 12, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 02-0021  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jaramillo v. Industrial Commission

Does the limitations period for requesting a hearing, as set forth in section 23-947(A), start to run before the carrier/employer has complied with the provisions of section 23-1061(F), which requires the Notice of Claim Status to be sent to the claimant's last known address?

August 15, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0103  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Putz v. Day

Does a licensed residential contractor who works primarily by himself but occasionally and unpredictably hires short-term labor for tasks requiring two or more persons "regularly employ" workers pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-902(A), thereby making him subject to the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act? 

June 18, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tabler v. Schuck

May an oral compromise and settlement agreement be approved by the Industrial Commission of Arizona and enforced against the employer and carrier, even though the claimant died before a written compromise and settlement agreement was executed?

March 7, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0053 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lovitch v. Gold

Does the evidence support the administrative law judge's conclusion that a Petition to Reopen was barred by the doctrine of res judicata?

January 31, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IC 00-0113  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Warren v. IC/ASU

Should post-injury raises related to the general labor market rather than to individual merit be excluded when assessing an injured worker's residual earning capacity?

September 11, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IC 99-0172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Fund v. Cyprus

Is the Special Fund precluded from arguing that multiple impairments to claimant's leg, resulting from a single industrial injury, are a scheduled disability and does the Special Fund qualify for reimbursement?

June 28, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0136 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Bernhart v. Fry's

What is the meaning of "wilful self-exposure" in A.R.S. § 23-901.04(A)?

April 17, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 00-0085/CV 00-0355 . . . . . . . . . . . Hanley v. Industrial Commission

Which prevails: a DR court's child support order or a workers' comp determination of a maximum of half that amount?

March 27, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 00-0030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rosarita v. Tapia

Did the ALJ err by awarding the claimant diagnostic testing and continuing benefits without medical testimony that his condition was either unstationary or permanent?

January 23, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 00-0001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cornelson v. Southwest Gas

1. When an industrial claim that is closed with a scheduled disability should have been closed with an unscheduled disability, is the closure notice void?

2. When a petition to reopen is filed after the uncontested denial of a prior petition to reopen, is proof of post-denial change of condition required?

December 7, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bergman v. Biritz

Was a local traveling salesman within the course of his employment when struck by a vehicle while jaywalking across the street after lunch?

September 14, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 97-0172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulter v. Metwest

Does the death of a treating physician prior to hearing automatically prevent the Commission from considering the physician's report?

August 28, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Fund v. ICA

What is the interpretation of A.R.S. section 23-1044(E), which provides for apportionment of an award in cases of successive injuries?

June 29, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWM v. Reynolds

1. What is the meaning of the word "substantial" as used in the phrase "substantial contributing cause" in A.R.S. section 23-1043.01(B)?

2. How does the "substantial contributing cause" standard in A.R.S. section 23-1043.01(B) affect the standard in Graver Tank?