Case Title: Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ.

Citation: 129 Ariz. 429, 631 P.2d 1087

Docket Number: 15160-PR

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1981-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
129 Ariz. 429 (1981) 631 P.2d 1087 CAVCO INDUSTRIES, Petitioner Employer, Industrial Indemnity Company, Petitioner Carrier, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Irieda A. Minney, Respondent Employee. No. 15160-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. July 10, 1981. *430 Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by Steven C. Lester, Phoenix, for petitioners. Calvin Harris, Chief Counsel, The Indus. Commission, Phoenix, for respondent. Chris T. Johnson, Phoenix, for respondent employee. STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice. This matter arises out of a petition to review a Court of Appeals decision holding that the medical opinion on which an award of the Industrial Commission was based was incredible. Cavco Industries v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 436, 631 P.2d 1094 (App. 1980). Jurisdiction was accepted pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.24. Opinion of the Court of Appeals vacated. Award of the Industrial Commission affirmed. Respondent Irieda Minney (hereafter respondent) was involved in an industrial accident on March 18, 1974 in the course of her employment with petitioner employer, Cavco Industries. Her injuries consisted of a fracture of her left patella (knee cap) and strained ligaments in her left thumb. Petitioner carrier accepted respondent's claim for benefits. Four years later it issued a Notice of Claim Status determining that respondent had a permanent impairment of her left leg which entitled her to scheduled compensation. Respondent filed a request for hearing. At the hearing, the impairment in the function of her left knee was not disputed. The only issue was whether there was a permanent impairment to her left thumb which when combined with the leg impairment would give rise to unscheduled compensation. See Engle v. Industrial Commission, 77 Ariz. 202, 269 P.2d 604 (1954). The hearing officer originally found no impairment to the thumb, rejecting the medical opinion of Richard L. Morgan, M.D. and accepting another physician's finding of no impairment. On a request for review, the hearing officer reversed himself, accepted Dr. Morgan's finding of an impairment to the left thumb, and gave respondent an award for unscheduled injuries. Petitioners' position is that the award must be aside because "Dr. Morgan's testimony is so suspect that, as a matter of law, it cannot afford a basis" for the award. The premise of petitioners' position is that on April 4, 1978, Dr. Morgan concluded there was no permanent impairment of the thumb. Petitioners contend that after being informed by respondent's attorney that such an impairment would give her an unscheduled award, the doctor changed his opinion and gave her a five percent impairment rating. For support, petitioners point to the doctor's April 4th medical report and his April 18th letter to respondent's attorney. In his April 4th medical report, Dr. Morgan wrote: In the letter of April 19th, Dr. Morgan wrote: It is true that the April 4th report contains no indication of an impairment rating for the thumb. But this fact is not conclusive. It does not necessarily follow that on April 4th Dr. Morgan held an opinion that there was no impairment, and that he later created or changed his opinion to increase respondent's benefits. Dr. Morgan's testimony at the hearing establishes that the petitioners' premise that on April 4th Dr. Morgan held a medical opinion of no permanent impairment to the thumb is incorrect. Rather, we believe the evidence substantially supports the hearing officer's modified finding. This finding provides: This finding followed from Dr. Morgan's testimony in which he explained the reason for not noting the thumb rating in his April 4th report. Pursuant to A.C.R.R. R-4-13-113(D), Rules of Procedure for Workmen's Compensation Hearings before the Industrial Commission of Arizona (former Rule 13(d)), all permanent impairments should be reported. But the failure to strictly comply with the rule cannot be held to be conclusive evidence that no impairment exists. "Rule 13(d) may not be interpreted in such a manner as to deprive a claimant of just compensation." Smith v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 304, 306, 552 P.2d 1198 (1976). Our holding is not predicated on Dr. Morgan's credibility, but, rather, because the record must be read in the light most favorable to sustaining the award. See Salt River Project v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 128 Ariz. 541, 627 P.2d 692, 695-696 (1981). The record supports the hearing officer's finding that Dr. Morgan believed on April 4, 1978 that respondent's left thumb was impaired and that he did not fabricate an opinion to gain her an unscheduled award. Petitioners complain that Dr. Morgan in reaching his opinion on impairment did not follow the American Medical Association's "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment." We have previously referred to the rule of procedure of the Industrial Commission, A.C.R.R. R-4-13-113(D), which provides: In Adams v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 294, 552 P.2d 764 (1976), and Smith v. Industrial Commission, supra, this Court recognized that Rule R-4-13-113 (former Rule 13(d)) does not require a finding of permanent impairment to be based only on the results of tests contained in the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides apply only where they cover the specific impairment and where the percentage of impairment contained therein truly reflects the claimant's loss. See Adams v. Industrial Commission, supra; Smith v. Industrial Commission, supra. These holdings recognize the plain wording of the rule of procedure and the non-exclusiveness of the AMA Guides as to the determination and rating of permanent impairments. The AMA in the Preface to its Guides gives this definition of permanent impairment, which was accepted in Smith: The guide pertaining to the thumb provides only two tests for the determination of a permanent impairment. One test measures restriction of motion and the other measures ankylosis or joint stiffness. The guide sets forth uniform impairment ratings for these two impairments and for amputations. But this does not mean that the only impairments of the thumb are loss of motion, ankylosis or amputation. The guide covering the thumb provides: Dr. Morgan assigned a permanent impairment to respondent's thumb because he noted on X-rays a degenerative change, a loss of joint space, at the interphalangeal joint which suggests the development of arthritis. His conclusion was also based on respondent's statement that she experienced pain with heavy gripping.[1] There was no sensory loss or muscle loss. There was also no restriction of movement or ankylosis. Even though no test in the AMA Guides would indicate an impairment, Dr. Morgan's finding of an impairment is in accord with the AMA's definition of that term since a loss of joint space or degenerative change of a joint is an "anatomic * * * abnormality."[2] In his testimony, Dr. Morgan explained the non-applicability of the AMA Guides to respondent's condition. Since the AMA Guides did not cover the specific impairment involved here, the Guides did not apply. Dr. Morgan could utilize means other than the AMA Guides to determine and rate the thumb impairment. *434 Petitioners argue even if Dr. Morgan could utilize means other than the Guides, his opinion is still incompetent since he only examined X-rays and accepted respondent's statements of subjective pain. Petitioners claim the results of such an examination must be doubted since the examination did not meet generally accepted medical procedure. Petitioners point to another doctor's statement that an impairment rating could not be based on an X-ray alone. This doctor's testimony was that an examination for an impairment in general requires more than a viewing of X-rays. It also involves the use of guidelines such as the AMA's Guides. This physician, however, did not testify that a determination of the type of impairment suffered by respondent could not be made solely on examining X-rays. Dr. Morgan's finding of an impairment is not incompetent simply because he had to rely on his training, experience and judgment in the absence of published guidelines. Petitioners contend that if the Arizona Workmen's Compensation Act and the regulations promulgated under it do not contain a reference to guidelines and if the Act does not require that findings of impairment be based on such guidelines, the Act is unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process since it provides no notice to them and sets forth no limit on the administrative agency's discretion. Petitioners are correct in asserting that a vague statute may violate due process because it either fails to give fair warning or lacks standards to restrict the discretion of those who apply it. See Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-403, 86 S. Ct. 518, 520-521, 15 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1966); Stamus v. Leonhardt, 414 F. Supp. 439, 451 (S.D. Iowa 1976).[3] But petitioners' theory of want of adequate notice is without merit because it has application only where there is a regulation of or sanction for conduct. Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 387 U.S. 118, 123, 87 S. Ct. 1563, 1566, 18 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1967); Stamus v. Leonhardt, supra at 451-452: see generally, Note, "The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court", 109 U.Penn.L.Rev. 67 (1960). The Arizona statute A.R.S. § 23-1044 does not regulate or proscribe conduct. Mandatory reference to published, objective guidelines is not required to fulfill the due process prohibition against vague statutes which allow arbitrary and discriminatory application. The Court of Appeals rejected a vagueness challenge to this state's general assistance statute which provided benefits to those "not employable." It was held that sufficient guidance was given to the administrative agency by a regulation which stated: In the instant case, sufficient guidance is given to the Industrial Commission by the definition of permanent impairment contained in Smith v. Industrial Commission, supra, 113 Ariz. at 305, n. 1, 552 P.2d 1198, to guard against arbitrary and irrational findings of impairment.[4] *435 Petitioners assert that the hearing officer's findings and award are not legally sufficient since he did not specify what "criteria" or guidelines were used to determine respondent's impairment of her left thumb. They urge that the whole award must fail in the absence of a specific finding as to how the finding of impairment was determined. However, in Foster v. Industrial Commission, 46 Ariz. 90, 92, 47 P.2d 428 (1935), this Court said: In Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Com'n, 96 Ariz. 34, 391 P.2d 589 (1964), the major material question was the cause of death of the claimant's husband. The Industrial Commission made no finding on this issue, but did make the ultimate finding that he died as the result of an injury arising out of his employment. This Court affirmed the award, holding that the only findings required are those of ultimate facts and the "Commission need not set forth the separate findings on the evidentiary facts which lead to a determination of the ultimate fact." Id. at 38, 391 P.2d 589. It is clear that the lack of findings on material issues does not invalidate an award per se. It may be vacated if the reviewing court is unable to determine whether the basis of the hearing officer's conclusion was legally sound. See Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz. App. 313, 315, 548 P.2d 26 (1976); Van Duzee v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz. App. 395, 543 P.2d 1152 (1975); ASARCO, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ariz. 241, 594 P.2d 107 (App. 1979). Compare Cammeron v. Industrial Commission, 98 Ariz. 366, 405 P.2d 802 (1965), and Sproul v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 128, 370 P.2d 279 (1962), with Foster v. Industrial Commission, supra. The ultimate issue here was whether respondent suffered from a permanent thumb impairment. An affirmative finding was made on that issue. A specific finding was unnecessary as to how the ultimate finding was reached since it can be determined from an examination of the record. The award of the Industrial Commission is affirmed. I am compelled to concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I am disturbed, as was the Court of Appeals, with a situation where the claimant's lawyer and the doctor discuss the structuring of a medical report to attain the best recovery. The infirmity of such evidence is apparent but the finder of fact failed or refused to see it. It is not appropriate for this court to substitute its assessment of the credibility of the evidence for that of the hearing officer. I concur in the result. [1] Both petitioners' and respondent's counsel state in their briefs that Dr. Morgan's finding of impairment was based on a loss of gripping strength. Dr. Morgan never himself stated that there was a loss of gripping strength. His finding was solely that when Mrs. Minney "would make a very forceful grip referable to her thumb, it would hurt her." Mrs. Minney was the one who testified to a loss of strength. [2] The AMA also states in the preface to its guides: "* * * permanent impairment can be measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy and uniformity, as it is evidenced by loss of structural integrity, loss of functional capacity, or persistent pain that is substantiated by clinical findings." American Medical Association, "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment," Preface," page iii. [3] Petitioners quote State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente, 18 Ariz. App. 246, 501 P.2d 422 (1972), review denied 109 Ariz. 439, 511 P.2d 621 (1973), where the Court of Appeals noted that this Court recognized in Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst, 79 Ariz. 403, 291 P.2d 764 (1955), two other "void for vagueness" doctrines independent of due process. One doctrine is that an indefinite statute imposing a duty on a public officer is an undue delegation of legislative power violative of Article 4 of the Arizona Constitution. The other doctrine is the simple common law rule that courts will not apply unintelligible laws. While petitioners quote State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente, supra, they do not contend the Act violates either of these doctrines. [4] In Smith v. Industrial Commission, supra at 307, n. 4, 552 P.2d 1198, we pointed out: "The percentage of impairment is relatively unimportant for unscheduled injuries since it is only one of several factors to be considered in arriving at a permanent disability. A.R.S. § 23-1044(D). The amount of compensation is determined by the claimant's reduction in earning capacity. A.R.S. § 23-1044(C)."