Kaibab Industries v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona5/16/2000
R>
The ALJ resolved the medical conflicts in favor of Dr. Shapiro and found that Ms. Sinks had suffered a new, additional or previously undiscovered condition relating solely to the 1995 industrial injury . His Decision Upon Hearing and Findings was issued on February 25, 1999, granting Ms. Sinks' Petition to Reopen the 1995 claim but denying her Petition to Reopen the 1994 claim. The ALJ affirmed the Decision Upon Hearing and Findings without modification on April 30, 1999. Lumbermen's timely filed a Petition for Special Action raising two issues:
1. Whether the ALJ erred in failing to apply the successive-injury doctrine; and,
2. Whether the ALJ abused his discretion by adopting Dr. Shapiro's testimony.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We deferentially review factual findings reasonably supported by the record, but we independently review legal conclusions. See PFS v. Industrial Comm'n, 191 Ariz. 274, 277, 955 P.2d 30, 33 (App. 1997). In determining the facts, it is the ALJ, not this court, who has the responsibility of resolving conflicts in expert opinions, and we will affirm an ALJ's resolution of conflicting opinions absent an abuse of his discretion. See Ford v. Industrial Comm'n, 145 Ariz. 509, 519, 703 P.2d 453, 463 (1985). Thus, as long as the ALJ reaches the right result, even for the wrong reason, the award generally will be affirmed upon review. See ITT Courier v. Industrial Comm'n, 141 Ariz. 357, 360, 687 P.2d 365, 368 (App. 1984).
B. The Successive-injury Doctrine
Lumbermen's first argues that the ALJ should have applied the successive-injury doctrine. This doctrine is a specialized application of the general principle that an employer takes the employee as she is. See Pearce Development v. Industrial Comm'n, 147 Ariz. 598, 601-02, 712 P.2d 445, 448-49 (App.), approved in pertinent part, 147 Ariz. 582, 712 P.2d 429 (1985). It operates as a rule of liability preference such that, when an employee suffers from a new or subsequent industrial injury and there are two potentially responsible employers, liability may be imposed on the employer responsible for the last industrial injury. Id. at 602, 712 P.2d at 449; see also Klosterman v. Industrial Comm'n, 155 Ariz. 435, 436, 747 P.2d 596, 597 (App. 1987); Dr. Pepper Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 154 Ariz. 563, 567, 744 P.2d 475, 479 (App. 1987). The doctrine thereby serves to assign responsibility to the last responsible employer, regardless of the relative weight of that employer's contribution to the current condition. See Pearce Development, 147 Ariz. at 602, 712 P.2d at 449.
1. Whether the 1997 Incident Constituted a New Injury
Lumbermen's initially argues that the successive-injury doctrine applies because Ms. Sinks suffered a new, distinct compensable industrial injury in 1997 and, therefore, liability rests with the Utah employer. A claimant must file a new injury claim for which the Commission can allocate liability in order for the successive-injury doctrine to apply. See A. J. Goulder Elec. v. Industrial Comm'n, 187 Ariz. 263, 267-69, 928 P.2d 687, 691-93 (App. 1996); Mercante v. Industrial Comm'n, 153 Ariz. 261, 265-66, 735 P.2d 1384, 1388-89 (App. 1987). By that means, an employee's underlying condition may become the responsibility of an employer if the new work activity "causes organic change in the underlying condition." Industrial Indemnity, Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 162 Ariz. 503, 508, 784 P.2d 709, 714 (App. 1989). A new employer also may be responsible for symptomatic aggravation but only if it amounts to an additional disability. Id. at 508-09, 784 P.2d at 714-15. Therefore, when the aggravation is caused b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|