Schreven v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 11 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7774,7774 |
| Citation | 393 P.2d 150,96 Ariz. 143 |
| Parties | Leonardus A. SCHREVEN, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Marion J. Evertsen Masonry Contractor, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Minne & Sorenson, by A. D. Ward, Phoenix, for petitioner.
C. E. Singer, Jr., Phoenix, for respondent, The Industrial Commission of Arizona. Donald J. Morgan, Lorin G. Shelley, Ben P. Marshall and Robert D.Steckner, Phoenix, of counsel.
This is an appeal by Certiorari from an award of the Industrial Commission granting the petitioner compensation and accident benefits up to November 15, 1961, but denying that he has any physical disability resulting from the accident in question.
Petitioner is a bricklayer and according to the undisputed evidence had been afflicted with an asymptomatic, nondisabling congenital deformity of the spine described as, 'saymmetry of the facets at the L-5, S-1 level.' Prior to the accident in question, which occurred on September 26, 1960, he had plied his trade for fifteen years without any physical difficulty. On this occasion he sustained a lumbo-sacral strain while bending over laying a twenty to thirty pound block into a footing. The Commission recognized this as an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation for temporary total disability to November 14, 1960, but found as of that date petitioner 'has no physical disability resulting from said accident.'
He returned to work November 15, 1960, and worked until January 24, 1961, during which time he suffered severe back pain which became progressively worse. He went to his attending physician, Dr. F. P. Snyder, and upon his advice filed to reopen his claim. The Commission complied with this request and authorized further treatment. It also awarded compensation for temporary total disability from January 24 to February 5, 1961. Petitioner returned to work on February 6. Another reoccurrence of his back condition forced him off the job on February 14, and compensation was against awarded from that date through May 31, 1961.
Dr. Snyder fitted petitioner with a back brace and reported to the Commission that his patient must have either a spinal fusion or be sent to vocational training to learn a less strenuous avocation. The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation did some testing and with the Commission's consent referred him to the Samuel Gompers Rehabilitation Center. He was awarded compensation for temporary partial disability deginning June 1, 1961 which continued to November 15, 1961, the Commission finding that during such time he was able to do light work.
The results of the rehabilitation tests indicated aptitudes in several fields requiring training at a cost of at least $800. The Commission declined to authorize such training as they felt the need for rehabilitation was not the result of his injury.
A medical consultation report was requested and received by the Commission. The report stated that petitioner had recovered from the injury of September 26, 1960, but that he would have recurrence of his back trouble if he attempted to return to his former occupation. The consultants found that petitio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mansfield v. Enterprise Brass Works Corp.
...Travelers Ins. Co., 284 So.2d 888 (La.1973); Schainberg v. Dacus, 233 Ark. 622, 346 S.W.2d 462 (1961); Schreven v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 96 Ariz. 143, 393 P.2d 150 (1964); Bolton v. [97 MICHAPP 753] Catalytic Construction Co., 309 So.2d 167 (Miss., 1975); Perez v. Pearl-Wick Cor......
-
Slayton v. Industrial Commission
...as opposed to work generally, in order to aggravate the preexisting congenital or chronic condition, e.g. Schreven v. Industrial Commission, 96 Ariz. 143, 393 P.2d 150 (1964); Arellano v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App. 598, 545 P.2d 446 (1976); Price v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.A......
-
McAvoy v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...because, unlike the claimant in that case, he is "not trying to establish a 'permanent impairment.'" He maintains Schreven v. Indus. Comm'n, 96 Ariz. 143, 393 P.2d 150 (1964), controls instead, arguing that, like the claimant in Schreven, he is seeking "further active treatment" to improve ......
-
Port of Portland v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs
...some worsening of the underlying impairment. See Independent Stevedore, 357 F.2d at 815 (citing with approval Schreven v. Industrial Comm., 96 Ariz. 143, 393 P.2d 150, 152 (1964) (claimant who had a congenital back deformity and suffered a disabling employment accident awarded full compensa......