Tronsen v. Industrial Commission, 1
| Decision Date | 19 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | CA-IC,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | Frank A. TRONSEN, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Productions Painting, Inc., Respondent Employer, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Respondent Carrier. 678. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Langerman, Began & Lewis, P.A., by Stanley J. Marks and Jack Levine, Phoenix, for petitioner.
William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, Phoenix, The Industrial Commission of Arizona, for respondent.
O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshars, by Donald L. Cross, Phoenix, for respondent carrier.
This is a review by writ of certiorari of the findings and award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona. The sole issue is whether the finding that petitioner is not entitled to medical benefits beyond April 1, 1970 is reasonably supported by the evidence.
Petitioner Tronsen, age 54, injured his back while working on February 2, 1970 when he slipped as he was carrying two five-gallon buckets of paint. He reported the accident and injury to his supervisor and continued doing light work that day. On February 10 he went to and began treatments with Dr. Victor J. Haag, a chiropractor and naturopathic physician. On February 18, at the request of respondent carrier, petitioenr was examined by Dr. Robert A. Johnson, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. At that time Dr. Johnson made a report of his examination, diagnosis and treatment. A copy of this report was given to Dr. Haag.
Dr. Johnson's diagnosis was that petitioner had a degenerative disc disease of the mid-lumbar spine and a superimposed strain-sprain of the lumbar spine. In the area of tratment he instructed petitioner as to the care of his back and recommended certain flexion exercises. In his report Dr. Johnson stated that he felt petitioner would not benefit from further chiropractic manipulation or treatment. He anticipated that within a period of two to four weeks petitioner's condition would be stationary and that he would have no impairment related to the injury.
On March 3, 1970 Dr. Haag wrote the carrier's representative that he had received Dr. Johnson's report and had instructed petitioner regarding the care of his back and the flexion exercises. He stated he would observe petitioner and that he anticipated petitioner's discharge without disability within the next thirty days. On March 13 Dr. Haag requested authority from respondent carrier for a second series of treatment. On March 17 the carrier responded, indicating that it would not authorize additional treatments in view of Dr. Johnson's report. On April 1 Dr. Haag wrote that he did not completely concur with Dr. Johnson's report and would continue to treat petitioner until he was asymptomatic. Dr. Haag continued the treatments until May 20 at which time he discharged petitioner. Dr. Haag administered approximately sixty treatments between February 10 and May 20, 1970.
On April 30, 1970 the finding and award granting medical benefits through April 1, 1970 was made by the hearing officer. This award was affirmed by the Commission. It is the series of treatments by Dr. Haag from April 1 through May 20, 1970 which is the subject of this appeal.
It is petitioner's contention that Dr. Johnson was not a treating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Guzman-Santoyo
...Guzman-Santoyo relies on Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009), State v. Jacobson, 244 Ariz. 187 (App. 2017), and Tronsen v. Industrial Commission, 18 Ariz. App. 149 (1972), to support her position that a PTSD diagnosis by "a qualified expert" is required before she may be convicted of cri......
-
Pitts v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...expert testimony is generally required to assess when such a diagnosis could have been made. See Tronsen v. Indus. Comm’n , 18 Ariz. App. 149, 150, 500 P.2d 1137, 1138 (1972) (noting that when the answer to a question of fact is within the purview of medical experts, an ALJ must generally r......
-
Perkins v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...records, diagnostic tests, and examinations. Id. It is the ALJ's duty to resolve conflicting medical opinions. See Tronsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 18 Ariz. App. 149, 150-51 (1972). In so doing, she may consider such factors as the qualifications and experience of the expert witnesses, the nature ......
-
PDS Technical Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...resolve medical conflicts, and in doing so, she may consider the experienceand qualifications of the experts. See Tronsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 18 Ariz. App. 149, 150-51 (1972). In this case, the ALJ adopted the opinion of Dr. Harber over Dr. Schwartzberg and we find no error.¶16 The claimant a......