ALL LINKS ON THIS PAGE ARE PDF FILES AND WILL REQUIRE ADOBE ACROBAT READER
July 14, 2011. . . . . . . . . IC 10-0059. . . . . . . . Bridgestone/Old Republic v. ICA/Truelock
Must an injured employee who loses teeth in an industrial accident prove permanent
disfigurement in order to recover benefits under Arizona Revised Statutes section
23-1044(B)(2)?
July 7, 2011. . . . . . . . . . IC 10-0048. . . . . . . . .McMurry v. ICA/ADP
Whether the failure of an administrative law judge to issue a decision within thirty days
after a hearing pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 23-942(A) divests the ICA
of jurisdiction?
May 3, 2011 . . . . . . . . . .IC 09-0054 . . . . . . . . Hahn v. ICA/Phoenix/Pinnacle
Should Arizona Revised Statutes section 23-901.01(B) (3), which grants a
presumption that certain cancers contracted by firefighters or peace officers
involved in hazardous duty are occupational diseases, be construed so as to
eliminate the requirement that the claimant prove that the job-related carcinogen
“is reasonably related to the cancer” because the statutory language is inconsistent
with the Legislature’s intent to relieve claimants from proving a direct causal
connection and proximate cause and therefore absurd?
March 8, 2011 . . . . . . . . IC 09-0084 . . . . . . . . Special Fund v. ICA/Bombara/JAR
Is the election of remedies defense created by Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.")
section 23-1024(B) (1995) waived if not asserted before a determination of
compensability has become final?
November 30, 2010. . . . ..IC 09-0028. . . . . . . Bank One/Ace v. ICA/Morris
Did the administrative law judge err in determining he was precluded from considering
whether the claimant's supportive care could be modified, where the settlement agreement
between claimant and employer provided for annual review of the supportive care benefits
for need and/or use?
July 8, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . IC 09-0040 . . . . . . Gutierrez v. ICA/Masterson/SCF
1. Whether Arizona Administrative Code R20-5-113(B) and specifically the phrase
"the most recent edition" refers to the Fifth Edition of the American Medical Association
("AMA") Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment ("Guides"), which was in
effect when the rule was adopted.
2. Whether the ICA unlawfully delegated its rulemaking authority to the AMA when it
permitted Claimant's permanent impairment to be rated according to the Sixth Edition
of the AMA Guides.
3. Whether the ICA's use of the Sixth Edition of the AMA Guides violates Article 18,
Section 8, of the Arizona Constitution.
January 21, 2010. . . . . . . .IC 08-0060. . . . . . .Special Fund v. ICA/McCarthy
An employee with a pre-existing disability from diabetes is injured in an industrial
accident, sustaining permanent impairment to one arm and one leg. Are the employer
and workers’ compensation carrier entitled to reimbursement (often called
“apportionment”) from the Special Fund Division of the ICA under Arizona Revised
Statutes Section 23-1065(C) and 23-1044(B)?
August 4, 2009 . . . . . . . . .IC 08-0013 . . . . . . Keovorabouth v. ICA/Rockford
The employer and carrier scheduled the deposition of a workers' compensation
claimant. The claimant was injured in an automobile accident while traveling to
her attorney's office prior to the scheduled deposition. Are the claimant's
injuries sustained in the automobile accident compensable under our workers'
compensation system?
March 12, 2009 . . . . . . . . IC 08-0017 . . . . . . Lee v. ICA/Banner
Does the common fund doctrine require an employer that is self-insured
for both workers' compensation and short-term disability to pay attorneys'
fees to a lawyer who successfully litigates a workers' compensation claim?
February 24, 2009 . . . . . . IC 08-0027 . . . . . . Patches v. ICA/Phoenix
Are housekeeping services compensable under the Act when recommended
by a claimant's doctor?
August 26, 2008 . . . . . . . . IC 07-0054 . . . . . . Carbajal v. ICA/Phelps
Is the care provided by a spouse to an injured claimant "other treatment"
under Arizona Revised Statutes section 23-1062(A) if it does not fall
within the ambit of medical or nursing care?
May 13, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . IC 07-0016 . . . . . . Avila v. ICA/Asset
1. Did the ALJ erred by allowing the uninsured respondent employer
and the respondent party in interest, Special Fund Division, to have
separate representation.
2. Did the ALJ erred in determining claimant’s loss of earning
capacity (LEC).
February 28, 2008 . . . . . . . IC 07-0020 . . . . . Obregon v. ICA/Sun Lakes
If a workers’ compensation claimant is convicted of violating A.R.S. § 23-
1028(A) by making false statements to obtain benefits, does the claimant forfeit
all workers’ compensation benefits or only those benefits obtained as a result
of the false statements?
October 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 06-0092 . . . . . . Sun Valley v. ICA/Jones
Must an employee who seeks to reopen an industrial compensation claim always
show that his current need for medical treatment is the “direct and natural” result
of the original injury and that there is a “substantial causal relationship” between
the original injury and the current condition?
September 6, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 06-0073 . . . . . PF Changs v. ICA/Lau
Did a claimant’s injuries following a physical altercation with his supervisor arise
out of his employment, where the work of the claimant and supervisor brought
them together and created the conditions resulting in the altercation?
November 7, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 06-0011 . . . . . . . Morse v. ICA/UPS
Did the Administrative Law Judge err by failing to consider the claimant’s prospective wages from a new employer, for whom she had not yet begun to work, in setting the average monthly wage?
October 26, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0141 . . . . . . Martinez v. ICA/SYSCO
1. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction when a Petition for Special Action in an ICA case is filed in the wrong court?
October 17, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0133 . . . . . . . Western Water v. ICA/Young
Does the one-year limitations period for filing a workers' compensation claim prevent the Industrial Commission of Arizona from acquiring jurisdiction over an employer by a joinder motion filed by the Special Fund after the limitations period has expired?
August 10, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0069 . . . . . . Gamez v. ICA/Thunderbird
1. In a case with conflicting medical evidence, did the administrative law judge err in denying benefits?
2. Does the current legislative scheme allow an undocumented immigrant to be treated as an employee for purposes of the Arizona Workers' Compensation Act?
July 27, 2006 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . IC 05-0058 . . . . . . Schuck v. ICA/Bojko
1. Does the equal measure rule preclude consideration of a specific type of employment available to Claimant post-injury (in this case, self-employment) that was not engaged in pre-injury?
2. Must actual earnings be considered, in determining loss of earning capacity, when there is evidence that the wages are not earned in the open labor market?
3. In a case involving self-employment, must the ALJ consider whether profits generated reflect “actual earnings” as contrasted with profits generated independent of a claimant’s efforts?
October 27, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 04-0092 . . . . . . . . . . . Martens v. ICA/AZ Dept. of Corrections
1. Pursuant to statute, does a worker’s compensation claimant have a right to bring a third party, other than the claimant’s physician, to an IME or an IPE requested by her carrier?
2. Does an administrative law judge have authority to allow a third party other than the claimant’s physician be present during a requested IME or IPE to “protect a claimant from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense?”
April 21, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 02-0084 . . . . . . . . . . . Naslund v. ICA/Maricopa County
Does the 1999 amendment to A.R.S. section 23-1044(A), which allows employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers to reduce an injured employee's temporary partial disability benefits if that person is also receiving retirement or pension benefits resulting from prior work for the same employer, violate Article 18, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution?
February 8, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IC 04-0016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kelly Services v. ICA/Gross
Is a workers’ compensation claimant’s "area of residence" necessarily limited to the community in which he resides for the purpose of determining the relevant labor market?
October 20, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 03-0041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Komalestewa v. Stoneville
1. Do A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) and (H)(2) change the standard to determine whether a work-related injury is noncompensable when the employee’s use of alcohol or drugs contributed to the injury?
2. Do A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) and (H)(2), which bar workers’ compensation benefits for injuries in which the employee’s use of alcohol or unlawful use of a controlled substance was a substantial contributing cause, violate Article 18, Section 8, of the Arizona Constitution by depriving workers of compensatory benefits for injuries “caused in whole, or in part, or [] contributed to, by a necessary risk or danger of such employment?
May 20, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . IC 01-0117 . . . . . . . . . . Grammatico v. AROK
Does A.R.S. § 23-1021(D), which applies to injuries suffered in workplaces that implement a qualified drug-free workplace policy, violate Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution by depriving workers of compensatory benefits for injuries "caused in whole, or in part, or . . . contributed to" by necessary employment risks and dangers?
June 17, 2003.......................................IC 02-0088............................Anderson v. Pete King
Does A.R.S. § 23-1031 apply to a claimant whose benefit award was final prior to December 1,
1997 but whose criminal act was committed after that date?
February 11, 2003.................................IC 02-0072...................................Young v. Peach Springs
Does an out-of-state industrial injury which results in permanent impairment and an award of permanent
benefits, which injury would have been a scheduled injury had it occurred in Arizona, convert
a subsequent Arizona scheduled injury into an unscheduled injury for purposes of determining
permanent disability benefits?
January 7, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASARCO v. Duke
When a notice of benefits is contradicted by something outside of the record, does the Roseberry line of cases prevent it from becoming final and res judicata?
December 12, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 02-0021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jaramillo v. Industrial Commission
Does the limitations period for requesting a hearing, as set forth in section 23-947(A), start to run before the carrier/employer has complied with the provisions of section 23-1061(F), which requires the Notice of Claim Status to be sent to the claimant's last known address?
August 15, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Putz v. Day
Does a licensed residential contractor who works primarily by himself but occasionally and unpredictably hires short-term labor for tasks requiring two or more persons "regularly employ" workers pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-902(A), thereby making him subject to the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act?
June 18, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tabler v. Schuck
May an oral compromise and settlement agreement be approved by the Industrial Commission of Arizona and enforced against the employer and carrier, even though the claimant died before a written compromise and settlement agreement was executed?
March 7, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 01-0053 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lovitch v. Gold
Does the evidence support the administrative law judge's conclusion that a Petition to Reopen was barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
January 31, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IC 00-0113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Warren v. IC/ASU
Should post-injury raises related to the general labor market rather than to individual merit be excluded when assessing an injured worker's residual earning capacity?
September 11, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IC 99-0172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Fund v. Cyprus
Is the Special Fund precluded from arguing that multiple impairments to claimant's leg, resulting from a single industrial injury, are a scheduled disability and does the Special Fund qualify for reimbursement?
June 28, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0136 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Bernhart v. Fry's
What is the meaning of "wilful self-exposure" in A.R.S. § 23-901.04(A)?
April 17, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 00-0085/CV 00-0355 . . . . . . . . . . . Hanley v. Industrial Commission
Which prevails: a DR court's child support order or a workers' comp determination of a maximum of half that amount?
March 27, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 00-0030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rosarita v. Tapia
Did the ALJ err by awarding the claimant diagnostic testing and continuing benefits without medical testimony that his condition was either unstationary or permanent?
January 23, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 00-0001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cornelson v. Southwest Gas
1. When an industrial claim that is closed with a scheduled disability should have been closed with an unscheduled disability, is the closure notice void?
2. When a petition to reopen is filed after the uncontested denial of a prior petition to reopen, is proof of post-denial change of condition required?
December 7, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bergman v. Biritz
Was a local traveling salesman within the course of his employment when struck by a vehicle while jaywalking across the street after lunch?
September 14, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 97-0172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulter v. Metwest
Does the death of a treating physician prior to hearing automatically prevent the Commission from considering the physician's report?
August 28, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Fund v. ICA
What is the interpretation of A.R.S. section 23-1044(E), which provides for apportionment of an award in cases of successive injuries?
June 29, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IC 99-0170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWM v. Reynolds
1. What is the meaning of the word "substantial" as used in the phrase "substantial contributing cause" in A.R.S. section 23-1043.01(B)?
2. How does the "substantial contributing cause" standard in A.R.S. section 23-1043.01(B) affect the standard in Graver Tank?