Dennis v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | CA-IC,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 461 P.2d 183,11 Ariz.App. 7 |
| Parties | Henry DENNIS, Petitioner, v. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondent Employer, The Industrial Commission of Arizona, and State Compensation Fund, Respondents. 273. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Chris T. Johnson, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Fennemore, Craig, von Ammon & Udall, by C. Webb Crockett and Michael Preston Green, Phoenix, for respondent employer.
Donald L. Cross, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona.
Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent State Compensation Fund.
The basic problem which is presented to this Court by the writ of certiorari to review an award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona denying the reopening of a claim is a possible conflict between the report of the doctors who participated in a group consultation and the testimony of the doctors in a formal hearing.
We recite only briefly the history of this industrial matter. The petitioner was injured in an industrial accident on 6 July 1960. A laminectomy was performed on 9 January 1962. On 5 October 1962 a formal hearing was held at which the surgeon testified. One of the issues in that hearing was the causal relationship between the 6 July 1960 episode and the surgery.
Procedural problems arose during the processing of the claim which were resolved in the petitioner's favor by the Arizona Supreme Court on 6 May 1964. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Industrial Commission, 96 Ariz. 72, 392 P.2d 28. Thereafter and on 11 August 1964, an award was entered for temporary disability. The award found, in part, '(t)hat the medical evidence reflects that said applicant has no physical disability Resulting from said accident, and the Commission so finds.' (Emphasis supplied.) This award became final.
The next procedural step of significance for our consideration in this opinion is the petitioner's January 1967 'Petition and Application for Readjustment or Reopening of Claim.' The petition was supported by a letter from an examining doctor who reported '(i)t is estimated this patient has a general functional loss of the whole man of approximately ten per cent.' The doctor did not express an opinion as to the causal relationship, if any, between his findings and the 6 July 1960 episode. An increase or rearrangement is authorized by A.R.S. § 23--1061, subsec. C. This section is supplemented by Industrial Commission Rule 64. The Rule recognizes the right to reopen upon a showing of 'new, additional, or previously undiscovered disability.'
The Industrial Commission convened a group medical concultation, four doctors participating. A unanimous consultation report was filed on 2 February 1967. We quote two paragraphs of the 'comments' portion of the report.
'COMMENTS: The consultants today find no new or additional disability referable to the accident of 7--6--60.
'The consultants feel that the patient has sustained a 10% General physical disability as a result of the accident of 7--6--60 but the consultants today find no objective residuals to explain this patient's rather prominent complaints and feel the symptoms are out of proportion to the history of the injury, subsequent treatment and absence of abnormal findings.'
On 27 February 1967, The Industrial Commission entered an award which recited, in part:
'Subsequent thereto (that is, following the filing of the petition for readjustment or reopening in January 1967) this Commission provided said applicant with an examination by a consulting board following which a report was submitted to the Commission wherein it was found said applicant had suffered a general physical functional disability as a result of his injury of July 6, 1960.
'This Commission having considered the file and all reports now reopens said applicant's claim and enters Findings and Award and Order Pending Determination of Earning Capacity * * *:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Romero v. Industrial Commission, 1
-
Dennis v. Industrial Commission
...brought his claim before us once before and the issues presented were determined against him. Dennis v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 11 Ariz.App. 7, 461 P.2d 183 (1969). The history of petitioner's claim is fully set out therein and we need only add that on May 26, 1971 ......
-
Boyd v. Industrial Commission, 1
...become final, The Industrial Commission was at liberty to reverse itself. In Dennis v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company and Industrial Commission of Arizona, 11 Ariz.App. 7, 461 P.2d 183 (1969), review denied, we stated on page 9 of 11 Ariz.App., page 185 of 461 'From and aft......