Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
| Decision Date | 22 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | CA-IC,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 175 Ariz. 319,856 P.2d 1197 |
| Parties | Luis R. MARTINEZ, Petitioner Employee, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, CAD Enterprises, Inc., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. 92-0108. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This is a special action review of an Arizona Industrial Commission award denying reimbursement of travel expenses. One issue is presented: whether the petitioner employee ("Claimant") should be reimbursed for his travel expenses incurred in obtaining industrially related medical treatment within the locality of his residence or employment. We conclude that the Arizona Workers' Compensation Act does not provide for the payment of these expenses. Therefore, we affirm the award.
On June 28, 1990, Claimant sustained an industrial back injury while employed as a machinist by the respondent employer, CAD Enterprises, Inc. ("CAD"). He filed a workers' compensation claim that was denied for benefits. He timely protested and, on January 23, 1991, an award was entered for a compensable claim.
On November 25, 1991, Claimant's attorney wrote to the Industrial Commission and requested reimbursement of Claimant's travel expenses incurred as a result of his industrial accident. Claimant sought reimbursement for the miles he drove to hospitals, his attending physician, physical therapy, a pharmacy, an orthopedic supply store, and to a deposition. On December 9, 1991, the Industrial Commission denied this claim for reimbursement, and Claimant timely requested a hearing under Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") section 23-1061(J) (1983 & Supp.1992). 1 Following a prehearing conference, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") canceled the hearing. He stated that the dispositive issue involved a legal question which did not require a hearing. It was uncontroverted that Claimant at all times relevant resided in Peoria, Arizona, and that the injury took place at his employer's plant in Phoenix, Arizona. Similarly, the travel expenses for which Claimant sought reimbursement were incurred as a result of the course of care prescribed by Claimant's doctor and not at the behest of the Industrial Commission, the employer, or the insurance carrier. The parties submitted legal memoranda and, on April 24, 1992, the ALJ entered an award that Claimant take nothing by his request thereby denying reimbursement for travel expenses. The award was summarily affirmed on administrative review, and Claimant brought this special action.
We start our discussion by noting that any employee who suffers an industrial injury and whose employer is subject to the Arizona Workers' Compensation Act is "... entitled to receive and shall be paid such compensation for loss sustained on account of the injury or death, such medical, nurse, and hospital services and medicines ... as are provided by this chapter." See A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) (1983). These services and benefits include:
medical, surgical and hospital benefits or other treatment, nursing, medicine, surgical supplies, crutches and other apparatus, including artificial members, reasonably required at the time of the injury, and during the period of disability. Such benefits shall be termed "medical, surgical and hospital benefits."
A.R.S. § 23-1062(A) (1983).
Although this statute is silent as to travel expenses, those expenses, to a specifically limited extent, are the subject of an Industrial Commission rule.
When employees are directed by the Commission, an insurance carrier or an employer to report for medical examination or treatment in a locality other than either their place of residence or employment, they shall be entitled to reimbursement for transportation expenses, from either place of residence or employment whichever route of travel is required, and for living expenses, if any, incurred by reason of such travel. The employee's place of residence or employment shall be fixed as of the date of injury.
Ariz.Comp.Admin.R. & Regs. R4-13-116.A ("Rule 16(A)") (1987) (Supp. 84-4)
The only Arizona case that has addressed travel expenses is Jones v. Industrial Comm'n, 23 Ariz.App. 440, 533 P.2d 1177 (1975). In Jones, the claimant sustained an industrially related physical injury. During treatment for the physical injury, the claimant's doctor referred him to a psychiatrist. The claim eventually was closed as to the physical injury but without any mention of the psychiatric problem. The claimant timely protested, and the carrier sought an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist. That examination was eventually conducted by William B. McGrath, M.D.
On appeal, this court noted that the carrier paid the claimant's travel expenses incurred for his examination by Dr. McGrath. But the court declined to award any additional travel expenses finding that the claimant had failed to sustain his burden of presenting sufficient evidence upon which travel expense reimbursement could be calculated.
Nothing in the Jones case is inconsistent with Rule 16(A). The claimant apparently had to travel to an out-of-town independent medical examination with Dr. McGrath, and the carrier paid those travel expenses. The Jones case does not provide any guidance with regard to whether travel expenses, outside those delineated in Rule 16(A), are reimbursable.
Claimant argues that Rule 16(A) is an invalid attempt to limit "medical, surgical and hospital benefits" owed to claimants pursuant to A.R.S. section 23-1062. Although the statutory language does not mention travel expenses, Claimant urges the court to liberally construe A.R.S. sections 23-1021(A) and 23-1062(A) to imply a provision for reimbursement of travel expense without regard to whether such expense was incurred in a locality other than either Claimant's place of residence or employment. When "the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning," statutory interpretation is unnecessary, "and courts must follow the meaning of the statute as written." Ross (Robert) v. Industrial Comm'n, 112 Ariz. 253, 256, 540 P.2d 1234, 1237 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Alsbrooks v. Industrial Comm'n, 118 Ariz. 480, 578 P.2d 159 (1978). The words of the statute must be given their ordinary common meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended. A.R.S. § 1-213 (1989). One of the most basic rules of statutory construction is that in construing legislative language, courts will not enlarge the meaning of simple English words in order to make them conform to their own particular sociological or economic views. Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 413, 421, 466 P.2d 18, 26 (1970), cited in Padilla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breitenbach v. NB Handy Co.
...903-04; Cannon, 884 S.W.2d at 648; Simpson, 448 N.Y.S.2d at 261; Ney, 297 S.E.2d at 215. The appellees rely on Martinez v. Indus. Comm'n, 175 Ariz. 319, 856 P.2d 1197 (App.1993) and Helen Mining Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 242, 616 A.2d 759 (1992), arguing that their a......
-
Carbajal v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...at 1221 (citing Terry Grantham Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 154 Ariz. 180, 183, 741 P.2d 313, 316 (App.1987) and Martinez v. Indus. Comm'n, 175 Ariz. 319, 322, 856 P.2d 1197, 1200 (App. 1993)). Clearly a van or travel is not "medical service." The court then held that child care expenses were dist......
-
Carbajal v. the Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...1221 (citing Terry Grantham Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 154 Ariz. 180, 183, 741 P.2d 313, 316 (App. 1987) and Martinez v. Indus. Comm'n, 175 Ariz. 319, 322, 856 P.2d 1197, 1200 (App. 1993)). Clearly a van or travel is not "medical service." The court then held that child care expenses were distin......
-
D'Angelo v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...See A.R.S. § 23-921(B) (IC may make all rules "reasonably required in the performance of its duties"); see also Martinez v. Indus. Comm'n, 175 Ariz. 319, 322 (App. 1993). The Code is "part of the record in each action or proceeding without reference" thereto, A.A.C. R20-5-101(B), and "[t]he......