DeVall v. Industrial Commission, 1
| Decision Date | 07 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | CA-IC,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | Edith DeVALL, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Rucy Collie dba Villa Del Sol Motel, Respondent Employer. 1691. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This workmen's compensation case presents the question of whether petitioner Edith DeVall was an employee within the meaning of the Arizona Workmen's Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-901 et seq. and, thus, entitled to benefits for an injury suffered while she was cleaning the swimming pool at Villa Del Sol Motel, respondent employer.
Respondent carried no workmen's compensation insurance, so petitioner's claim was initially processed by the Industrial Commission. It was denied and a hearing was held which resulted in an award finding that petitioner was not an employee of the respondent. The award was affirmed on review and this special action followed.
The essential dispute in this matter concerns whether petitioner was hired as part of a husband-wife team to manage the Villa Del Sol Motel, or whether the husband alone was hired and petitioner was strictly a volunteer as to any work which she performed. There is some dispute reflected in the record over the negotiations leading to the hiring of the new manager for the motel. The hearing officer felt this dispute created a factual conflict to be resolved in his award and, additionally, made several findings relating to petitioner's credibility. A review of the undisputed facts, however, leads us to the conclusion that regardless of the pre-employment negotiations, and notwithstanding respondents' protestations to the contrary, petitioner was at all times treated as an employee and as half of a managing team consisting of her husband and herself.
We recognize that we are required to view the award in a light most favorable to sustaining it and that it is the hearing officer's prerogative to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Malinski v. Industrial Commission, 103 Ariz. 213, 439 P.2d 485 (1968). It is also true, though, that the definition of "employee" is to be given a liberal interpretation in order to properly effectuate the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Hughes v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 517, 558 P.2d 11 (1976); Industrial Commission v. Farm and Home Food Service, Inc., 5 Ariz.App. 339, 426 P.2d 808 (1967).
It is the generally recognized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avila v. Northrup King Co.
...See Nation, 145 Ariz. at 419, 701 P.2d at 1227; Word, 135 Ariz. at 519 n. 4, 662 P.2d at 1026 n. 4; DeVall v. Industrial Comm'n, 118 Ariz. 591, 592, 578 P.2d 1020, 1021 (App.1978). A contract of hire is implied when the employee accepts (1) the general employer's assignment to work with the......
-
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc.
...to establish the relationship must exist between the parties. That agreement may be express or implied. DeVall v. Industrial Commission, 118 Ariz. 591, 578 P.2d 1020 (App.1978). In Novenson, the court "When the party asserting the existence of an implied employment relation is not an employ......
-
Flamingo Motor Inn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 1
...liberal interpretation in order to properly effectuate the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. DeVall v. Industrial Commission, 118 Ariz. 591, 578 P.2d 1020 (App. 1978). A.R.S. § 23-901(4)(b) 2 defines an § 23-901. Definitions 4. "Employee", "workmen" and "operative" means: (b) Ever......
-
Henderson-Jones v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...to this chapter, including aliens and minors legally or illegally permitted to work for hire ...”); DeVall v. Indus. Comm'n, 118 Ariz. 591, 592, 578 P.2d 1020, 1021 (App.1978) (explaining that although a contract of hire may be implied or express, it is in all cases necessary); 3 Arthur Lar......