Ronquillo v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 24 March 1967
• Docket Number: CA-IC,No. 1,1
• Citation: 425 P.2d 135,5 Ariz.App. 233
• Parties: Reynaldo B. RONQUILLO, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondents, Martin Construction Company, Defendant Employer. 111.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 135

425 P.2d 135

5 Ariz.App. 233

Reynaldo B. RONQUILLO, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondents Martin Construction Company, Defendant Employer.

No. 1 CA-IC 111.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

March 24, 1967.

Hirsch, Van Slyke & Ollason, by Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for petitioner.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, by Spencer K. Johnston, Tucson, for respondents.

CAMERON, Chief Judge.

This is a writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of an award and finding of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. The petitioner, Reynaldo B. Ronquillo, was injured in an industrial accident in May of 1962. He fell from a 15 foot retaining wall landing on his feet, and injuring both ankles and fracturing the left leg. He was taken to the hospital at which time it was discovered that he was suffering from high blood pressure (hypertension), and the fractures could not be reduced surgically until the hypertension was evaluated and treated by a specialist. Thereafter the high blood pressure was controlled by medication and the fractures were treated surgically.

Petitioner received medical treatment for some three years until 1965 when his condition was evaluated by a consultation board. The Commission issued an award in June of 1965 which found that petitioner had a permanent partial disability amounting to a 50% Loss of function of the left leg. The award was protested and a hearing was held in November of 1965.

We are called upon to determine whether the evidence sustains the award and finding of the Commission in relation to the effect of the industrial accident and the hypertension upon petitioner's resulting disability.

The evidence is abundantly clear that petitioner's hypertension preexisted the date of the accident. The evidence is also abundantly clear that the injury aggravated petitioner's hypertension. Petitioner's hypertension continued to be a source of concern to the physicians, particularly before any surgical correction for petitioner's injuries.

The report of a medical consultation held 16 April 1965 recited as follows:

'It is the conclusion of the undersigned examiners that this man's condition is now stationary. Further examination and treatment as a result of the injury itself are not indicated. It is to be stressed and has been stressed to the patient that he has a problem in hypertension and this must be followed medically, regularly, however, this is not felt to be the result of his injury nor is it an industrial responsibility insofar as his medical care is concerned for hypertension. Any aggravation which may have occurred from the injury to his essential hypertension has already passed and there is no relationship between his essential hypertension and the industrial incident at this time * * * it is felt that this man has sustained a permanent partial loss of the left leg amounting to 50%.'

The Industrial Commission issued its finding and award for scheduled permanent disability 2 June 1965. Petition for rehearing was timely filed and hearing was held 11 November 1965, at which time both the petitioner and fund were represented by counsel. Petitioner presented lay testimony of fellow employees which amply demonstrated his ability to work before the accident and his inability to work since the accident. Also presented was petitioner's testimony in this regard which indicated that he was unable to obtain employment because of his present 50% Loss of function of the left leg as well as the hypertension. Dr....