Case Title: MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission

Citation: 111 Ariz. 466, 532 P.2d 528

Docket Number: 11775-PR

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1975-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
111 Ariz. 466 (1975) 532 P.2d 528 MRF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Robert F. Finerd, Respondent Employee. No. 11775-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 10, 1975. Rehearing Denied April 8, 1975. *467 Everett, Bury & Moeller, P.C. by J. Michael Moeller, Tucson, for petitioners. Edward F. Cummerford, Chief Counsel The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, for respondent. Davis & Eppstein by Robert W. Eppstein and Lars Pedersen, Tucson, for respondent employee. CAMERON, Chief Justice. We granted a petition for review of an opinion and memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, Department B, which set aside an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. We must answer the following questions: The following facts are necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal. Petitioner sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 9 May 1972. At the time of the injury the petitioner was 18 years of age. After hospitalization for treatment, the petitioner, dissatisfied with the medical attention he was receiving, signed himself out of the hospital and sought the services of a family physician. On 25 May 1972, the petitioner consulted and retained Robert Eppstein, attorney at law, to represent him in the matter. Although a written authorization was not filed with the Industrial Commission as required by Rule 5(a), Rules of Procedure Before the Industrial Commission of Arizona, respondent insurance carrier entered into negotiations with Mr. Eppstein concerning the workman's condition. At the hearing Mr. Eppstein testified as follows: The request for hearing dated and mailed 8 September 1972 was 84 days after the workman received the notice of claim status, but within 60 days from the date the attorney received a copy of the notice of claim status from the respondent carrier. After a hearing, the hearing officer made findings of fact as follows: The hearing officer also awarded medical and temporary disability compensation benefits. The carrier filed a request for review with the Industrial Commission. The Commission made the following findings and award: The carrier brought a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division One, and the Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the hearing officer and the decision of the Industrial Commission stating: We disagree. The purpose of Rule 5(a) of the Rules of Procedure Before the Industrial Commission is to give notice not only to the Commission but to others such as the carrier that the workman is represented by a particular attorney. The respondent carrier, actively negotiating with the attorney both before and after the notice was mailed to the workman on 19 June 1972, at no time questioned Mr. Eppstein's right to represent the workman. In Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz. App. 6, 467 P.2d 81 (1970), the Court of Appeals stated: In the instant case, the notice of claim status was received by the attorney on 19 July 1972, and while the lack of attention to detail on the part of the workman's attorney could have jeopardized the rights of the workman had his attorney not discovered the matter in time, nevertheless the motion for rehearing was made within 60 days of that notice. We hold under the circumstances of this case that the request for hearing was timely filed. We agree with the statement of Judge Ogg of the Court of Appeals: We further hold that the record before this court supports the award of the hearing officer and the Commission for medical and temporary disability compensation benefits to the workman. Opinion and decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, Department B, vacated. Award of the Industrial Commission affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and LOCKWOOD, HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.