State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 11 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | CA-IC,Nos. 1,s. 1 |
| Citation | 543 P.2d 154,25 Ariz.App. 316 |
| Parties | STATE COMPENSATION FUND and Riteway Transport, Inc., Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Fred J. Harvill, Respondent Employee. Fred J. HARVILL, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Riteway Transport, Inc., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. 1268, 1 1272. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
On February 21, 1973, Fred J. Harvill was injured when the truck he was driving for his employer, Riteway Transport, Inc., skidded on an icy highway and crashed into an embankment. As a result of the accident, Harvill sustained injuries which permanently disabled him from returning to his former work as a truck driver.
Harvill's claim for compensation was accepted by the carrier, State Compensation Fund. On February 15, 1974, the Fund issued a Notice of Claim Status terminating Harvill's temporary compensation and medical benefits and discharging him with a scheduled, 25 per cent functional loss of use of the right leg as of January 15, 1974.
Two hearings were held challenging the Notice of Claim Status. Harvill claimed that his permanent disability should be rated as unscheduled rather than scheduled and that his condition was not yet stationary because of a residual mental disability which resulted from the industrial injury.
The hearing officer issued his decision on September 17, 1974 finding Harvill's condition resulting from his industrial injury became stationary on January 15, 1974 and that as a result of the injury Harvill sustained an unscheduled, 30 per cent functional loss of the use of the right leg. The hearing officer further concluded that Harvill was not afflicted with a compensable psychiatric injury or residual related to his industrial injury.
Both claimant, Harvill, and the Fund and employer petitioned for Writ of Certiorari. Harvill contests the finding of no compensable psychiatric injury and the employer and Fund contest the rating of the permanent disability as unscheduled rather than scheduled. The cases were consolidated on appeal. We find that the award of the hearing officer must be affirmed on both counts.
The employer, Riteway Transport, Inc., and carrier, State Compensation Fund, contest the award of an unscheduled permanent partial disability by the hearing officer. Their position is that Harvill's disability affected only his leg and that therefore he has a scheduled rather than unscheduled disability.
The criterion upon which it is determined whether an award should be 'scheduled' or 'unscheduled' is not the situs of the actual injury but rather the location of the residual impairment. Arnott v. Industrial Commission, 103 Ariz. 182, 438 P.2d 419 (1968); Woppert v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 72, 480 P.2d 687 (1971); Bradley v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App. 204, 475 P.2d 296 (1970); Merrill v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App. 564, 466 P.2d 783 (1970); Pena v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 573, 460 P.2d 1002 (1969). Consequently, an injury to the neck and shoulder might result only in impairment to the arm (Arnott v. Industrial Commission, supra) or an injury to the hip might result only in impairment to the leg (Woppert v. Industrial Commission, supra). The determination of the location of the resulting impairment must be established by expert medical testimony since it is not clearly apparent to the lay person. See Cammeron v. Industrial Commission, 98 Ariz. 366, 405 P.2d 802 (1965).
In this case, two experts testified with regard to the physical disability, Dr. Melvyn L. Goldsmith and Dr. Sidney L. Stovall, both orthopedic surgeons. Their testimony reflected that Harvill sustained two fractures of the right leg, the right femur and upper right tibia in the accident. Harvill had no actual injury to the hip joint itself. Their testimony also characterized the resulting disability as limitation of motion in the hip and knee. Regarding the hip, Dr. Stovall testified that the disability belonged to the hip joint which he defined as including the head of the femur and the acetabulum (socket). Harvill's testimony also described severe pain in the hip area. Dr. Stovall's conclusion was based on measurements of the limitation of motion in Harvill's hip plus the symptoms of pain as described by Harvill. Miller v. Industrial Commission, 110 Ariz. 229, 517 P.2d 91 (1973) presented a similar situation of residual impairment. The medical testimony described the disability as a loss of function in the leg plus disabling pain in the hip region. The Court distinguished Arnott v. Industrial Commission, supra. In Arnott, the claimant had a neck and shoulder injury resulting in minimal loss of function in the arm; a scheduled injury. In Miller, the loss of function in the leg was coupled with disabling pain in the hip resulting in an unscheduled injury.
The hearing officer, after considering Harvill's and the experts' testimony, had reasonable evidence upon which he could find that this case was controlled by Miller v. Industrial Commission, supra; that is, loss of function of the leg plus disabling pain in the hip. The hearing officer's award will not be set aside if it is reasonably supported by the evidence. Micucci v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 194, 494 P.2d 1324 (1972); Malinski v. Industrial Commission, 103 Ariz. 213, 439 P.2d 485 (1968); Gardner v. Industrial Commission, 19 Ariz.App. 93, 505 P.2d 261 (1973).
Harvill asserts that he suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of his industrial accident and was entitled to further medical care and treatment. Two psychiatrists testified with regard to Harvill's mental condition. Dr. Richard E. H. Duisberg stated that while he observed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffers v. Pappas Trucking, Inc.
...is not exclusive.' " The rule set forth in Miller v. Industrial Commission, supra, was followed in State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App. 316, 543 P.2d 154 (1975), (disability to hip joint not a schedule injury to the leg); and Eggleston v. Industrial Commission, 24 ......
-
Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission
...by the evidence. See, e. g., Micucci v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 194, 494 P.2d 1324 (1972); State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App. 316, 543 P.2d 154 (1975). We first reiterate that this Court will consider the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining ......
-
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
...case within the rationale of the Miller decision, Supra, and the Court of Appeals' later decision in State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App. 316, 543 P.2d 154 (1975). Other jurisdictions which have considered the question here presented have determined that: '. . . th......
-
Roeder v. Industrial Commission
...the hip bone itself would have rendered Arnott inapplicable. The Court of Appeals' later decision in State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App. 316, 543 P.2d 154 (1975), likewise relied upon a finding of disabling pain in the hip area plus residual impairment of the hip ......