Ryan v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

• Decision Date: 20 January 1981
• Docket Number: No. 1,CA-IC,1
• Parties: Thomas Martin RYAN, Petitioner-Employee, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Transcon Freight Lines, Respondent-Employer, Transport Indemnity Company, Respondent-Carrier. 2392.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 37

623 P.2d 37

127 Ariz. 607

Thomas Martin RYAN, Petitioner-Employee, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent Transcon Freight Lines, Respondent-Employer Transport Indemnity Company, Respondent-Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 2392.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C.

Jan. 20, 1981.

O'Meara, Michela & Weber by Walter U. Weber, May P. Gin, Tucson, for petitioner-employee

Calvin Harris, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for Industrial Commission of Arizona.

O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears, P. A. by David W. Earl, Phoenix, for respondent-employer and respondent-carrier.

OPINION

O'CONNOR, Judge.

This is a special action brought to review an Industrial Commission award which determined it had no jurisdiction over petitioner's claim for Arizona benefits on the grounds that the petitioner was not hired in Arizona. We agree with the Commission's determination.

The facts are viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the administrative award and the award must be sustained if reasonably supported by the evidence. Micucci v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 194, 494 P.2d 1324 (1972).

The petitioner is and has been a resident of Tucson, Arizona. He was injured in California while employed as a truck driver for respondent, Transcon Freight Lines. Petitioner filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits in Arizona, which was denied by the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge's award denying jurisdiction was affirmed by the Industrial Commission on a request for review.

In April, 1978, petitioner was unemployed. He read an advertisement in a Tucson newspaper placed by Transcon for long distance truck drivers. The advertisement urged response to a toll free long distance telephone number at the Transcon headquarters in Oklahoma. Petitioner had worked occasionally as a temporary driver for Transcon's Tucson terminal, and he went to see the Transcon terminal manager in Tucson. The Tucson terminal manager telephoned the company headquarters in Oklahoma to confirm the advertisement, to inform the Oklahoma office of petitioner's interest in employment, and to give the manager's personal recommendation. The Tucson terminal manager had no authority to hire petitioner for the position, and, at the request of the Oklahoma office, he gave a form of application for employment to petitioner to complete and send to the Oklahoma office.

Petitioner completed the form, and then telephoned the Oklahoma office of Transcon about the application. A Transcon representative agreed to interview the petitioner and told him that if he personally brought the application to Oklahoma City he "would go to work sooner." At his own expense, petitioner went to Oklahoma City and kept his appointment to see the Transcon manager there. Petitioner delivered his written application and was asked to take a written test required by the Department of Transportation, a physical examination, and a driving test. Petitioner passed the tests and the physical examination, and began working for Transcon's Oklahoma office.

After petitioner's injury, his employer, Transcon, reported it to the Oklahoma Industrial Commission, and two weeks later petitioner began receiving benefits from Oklahoma. Upon petitioner's return to Arizona, after discharge from the hospital in California, be filed his claim for Arizona workmen's compensation benefits.

A.R.S. § 23-904(A) provides in part that:

If a workman who has been hired ... in this state receives a personal injury ... he shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state even though the injury was received without the state.

In Knack v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 545, 547, 503 P.2d 373, 375 (1972), the court explained the purpose of the statute as follows:

(It is) predicated on the benevolent social policy that residents of Arizona who may return after injuries to their homes in this state or whose families may reside in Arizona need the...