Garcia v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 08 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-IC,1 |
| Citation | 26 Ariz.App. 313,548 P.2d 26 |
| Parties | Raymond G. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, American Continental Homes, Respondent Employer, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Respondent Carrier. 1346. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
On this review of an award entered by the Industrial Commission's hearing officer in a workmen's compensation proceeding, the Court is faced with an unusually difficult question as to whether the award can be sustained in view of the record and the hearing officer's findings presented to us.
Without question, the petitioner (claimant) sustained a compensable injury to his back on March 24, 1974, while lifting a nursery tree planted in a five gallon container. The respondent carrier recognized the claim as compensable, and medical benefits together with temporary compensation on the basis of an average monthly wage in the amount of $909.44 were paid. However, on September 11, 1974, the carrier issued its 'Notice of Claim Status' terminating medical and temporary compensation benefits as of August 29, 1974, on the basis that the injury had become stationary on that date without any permanent disability. Thereafter, the claimant filed a timely 'Request for Hearing'. The requested hearing was subsequently held before the Industrial Commission's hearing officer on December 18, 1974. After the hearing, the Commission's hearing officer entered an award finding that the claimant had 'failed to sustain his burden of proof in establishing that he is entitled to continuing medical benefits or that he has sustained a permanent disability as the result of his industrial injury.' The hearing officer further concluded that the claimant's condition had become stationary on August 29, 1974, and entered an award which in effect sustained the respondent carrier's notice of claim status which allowed benefits through August 29, 1974, only.
The difficulties in reviewing the evidence which we have referred to above arise from the fact that the hearing officer was faced with two sets of medical witnesses who spoke from basically two different time references. One set of medical witnesses, consisting of Doctors Sidney L. Stovall, Ronald S. Haines, and Walter Edwards, through oral testimony and written reports, gave evidence which, taken by itself, clearly supports the hearing officer's determination. These three doctors examined the claimant on August 29, 1974, and were unanimous in their conclusions that on August 29, 1974, notwithstanding the claimant's subjective complaints, he 'was capable of returning to his previous work;' that he 'does not have any impairment of function due to his injury of March 25, 1974;' and that 'he will not benefit by any further treatment.'
The other set of witnesses, Doctors Donald Ray Stamper and Buford Gregory, both osteopathic physicians, testified from a later time reference involving examinations occurring after the issuance of the carrier's notice of claim status, but prior to the hearing in this matter. Doctor Stamper, whose practice is limited to radiology, testified concerning the interpretation of a November 12, 1974, lumbar myelogram. His conclusions as stated in his written report were:
'Studies of the lumbar spinal canal by oil myelography revealed a persistent concavity within the left anterolateral aspect of the oil column at the 5th lumbar intervertebral disc space level suggesting extrinsic pressure possibly associated with retropulsed or herniated disc material.'
No prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CAVCO Industries v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
...court is unable to determine whether the basis of the hearing officer's conclusion was legally sound. See Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App. 313, 315, 548 P.2d 26 (1976); Van Duzee v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App. 395, 543 P.2d 1152 (1975); ASARCO, Inc. v. Industrial Commis......
-
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...conclusion was legally sound. Cavco Industries v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 429, 631 P.2d 1087 (1981); Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App. 313, 548 P.2d 26 (1976). In reviewing this record, we note that the ALJ found Dr. Serbin's testimony most credible and rejected the ult......
-
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...findings as to material issue of whether claimant’s accident and physical injury caused her mental illness); Garcia v. Indus. Comm’n , 26 Ariz. App. 313, 315, 548 P.2d 26 (1976) (setting aside award where ALJ made no findings on the material issues in the case, including necessary findings ......
-
Payne v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...27 Ariz.App. 215, 553 P.2d 248 (1976); Janis v. Industrial Commission, 27 Ariz. 263, 553 P.2d 1248 (1976); Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App. 313, 548 P.2d 26 (1976). Dr. Wang's testimony that the petitioner was medically stationary with a 10% impairment from the 1978 injury full......