Fullen v. Industrial Commission
Decision Date | 03 April 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 13919-PR,13919-PR |
Citation | 122 Ariz. 425,595 P.2d 657 |
Parties | Earl R. FULLEN, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Red River Land and Cattle Company, Respondent Employer, Aetna Insurance Company, Respondent Carrier. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
John H. Budd, Jr., Chief Counsel The Industrial Com'n of Arizona, Phoenix, for respondent.
Lewis & Roca by Merton E. Marks, R. Kent Klein, Phoenix, for respondent employer and respondent carrier.
This is a petition for review of a memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which affirmed the Commission's holding that a petition to reopen was not filed in time to cover an industrially related operation on petitioner's knee. We take jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 47(b), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S.
We must answer the following questions on appeal:
1. Was the letter to the Industrial Commission of 2 January 1975 seeking to reopen ineffective because it was not signed by the petitioner?
2. Did the statement of the physician have to be attached to the letter in order for it to be deemed to have "accompanied" the petition to reopen?
3. Was the letter from the doctor's medical secretary a "statement of the physician" when it was not signed by the doctor?
Petitioner Earl R. Fullen injured his knee while stepping down from a piece of heavy equipment at his Douglas, Arizona, job on 5 September 1972. After treatment and surgery by Dr. W. E. George, a Phoenix orthopedic surgeon, a final award of a scheduled 30% Left leg permanent disability was entered on 24 October 1974.
By the middle of December 1974, it was apparent that more treatment was necessary. Dr. George's secretary, Jacqueline Manker, made attempts to contact the insurance carrier but "no one returned (her) calls." On 2 January 1974, Fullen's then attorney sent a letter to the Industrial Commission that read:
The letter was not signed by Fullen and no written medical report was enclosed with the letter.
The Commission received the letter on 6 January 1975. Dr. George performed further surgery on Fullen's injured knee on 7 January 1975. The Commission sent its form letter on 13 January 1975 to Fullen's address in Douglas and to his Douglas attorney advising by check mark before the appropriate paragraph:
A petition to reopen upon the Commission's form, signed by Fullen, was filed on 28 January 1975. This petition was supported by a 24 January 1975 letter from Dr. George's office addressed to Fullen's Douglas attorney which read:
It is not questioned that Fullen's claim was meritorious. The carrier, however, questioned the Commission's jurisdiction to reopen the claim as of a date prior to the operation on 7 January 1975 because of the failure of Fullen to follow the proper procedure. The hearing officer agreed and held that the petitioner was entitled to benefits only after 29 January 1975, the date the petition to reopen was deemed properly filed by the Commission. Surgical and hospital benefits for the knee operation of 7 January were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision. We granted Fullen's petition for rehearing.
The hearing officer found:
"(T)he document filed on January 6, 1975, is not sufficient for a PETITION TO REOPEN for two reasons:
(a) It was not accompanied by the medical report from a physician setting forth the physical condition of the applicant relating to the claim nor was any such document filed until January 29, 1975. This is not in accordance with (§ 23-1061(H) or Commission Rule 33).
(b) The document filed on January 6, 1975, is signed by the then attorney for the applicant and not by the applicant as required by (Rule 33(a))."
The Arizona Workmen's Compensation Act provides that injured workmen may petition for a reopening of their industrial claims. A.R.S. § 23-1061(H) states:
The Industrial Commission has, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-921(B), promulgated its own "(a) Petitions for Reopening of a Claim Based on New, Additional Or Previously Undiscovered Disability or Condition shall be filed with the Commission on forms prescribed by the Commission and which are available upon request. Said petition shall be completed in full, signed by the employee and shall be accompanied by a statement from a physician setting forth the physical condition of the employee relating to the claim.
rules of procedure. Rule 33 * of its rules states in relevant part:
The requirement in the rule that the petition be submitted on Commission forms and be signed by the petitioner is not required by the statute and there is nothing in the statute to prevent an attorney from filing a petition for and on behalf of his client. Fullen then is being denied the right to petition to reopen not because of the statute but because of additional requirements contained in the rules of the Commission. Our Court of Appeals has stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maricopa County v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 1
...laws should be liberally construed so as to give the worker every benefit to which he is rightly entitled. Fullen v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ariz. 425, 595 P.2d 657 (1979). Lacking a clear expression of legislative intention, we will not read into A.R.S. § 23-1044(A), which sets forth th......
-
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...construed liberally to effectuate its purpose in protecting its beneficiaries and compensating valid claims." Fullen v. Indus. Comm'n, 122 Ariz. 425, 429, 595 P.2d 657, 661 (1979). ¶ 53 While there is a general policy goal of compensating persons injured during employment, the objectives of......
-
Arizona Dept. of Public Safety v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...disability. Such an approach does little to serve the remedial goals of the workers' compensation system. Fullen v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ariz. 425, 595 P.2d 657 (1979) (compensation act is liberally construed to accomplish its purpose of protecting injured workers and compensating val......
-
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 1
...view of the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed, Fullen v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ariz. 425, 595 P.2d 657 (1979), we agree with the conclusion of the hearing judge that claimant was injured while performing work for the church......