Case Title: Johnson v. Industrial Commission

Citation: 107 Ariz. 338, 487 P.2d 759

Docket Number: 10310-PR

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1971-07-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
107 Ariz. 338 (1971) 487 P.2d 759 Curtis L. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. No. 10310-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. July 23, 1971. Rehearing Denied September 17, 1971. Morgan & Jerome, by D.A. Jerome, Phoenix, for petitioner. Donald L. Cross, Chief Counsel, The Industrial Commission, Phoenix, for respondent. *339 Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund, Phoenix, for respondent carrier. Stevenson, Warden & Smith, by William W. Stevenson, Flagstaff, for respondent employer. LOCKWOOD, Justice. Curtis L. Johnson filed with this Court a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, Curtis L. Johnson v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz. App. 310, 476 P.2d 163 (1970) which affirmed the award of the Industrial Commission entered April 11, 1969. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated, the award of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.[1] The petitioner sustained an industrial injury on the 27th of May, 1960 which was diagnosed as a lumbosacral strain and on February 7, 1961 an award of temporary disability with a finding of no physical disability resulting from the accident. On April 6, 1966 a petition for rehearing was filed and treated by the Commission as a petition to reopen for new, additional or previously undiscovered disability with supporting medical evidence to the effect that petitioner had undergone surgery for the removal of a herniated disc at L 4-5 and L 5-S1. The petitioner's physician was of the opinion that the industrial accident of May 27, 1960 was the main factor in producing the herniated disc. A.R.S. § 23-1061 reads as follows: Pursuant thereto the file was reopened and the following finding and award was made: The employer failed to file a timely petition for rehearing and therefore the order became final and res judicata, Zagar v. Industrial Commission, 40 Ariz. 479, 14 P.2d 472; Jupin v. Industrial Commission, 71 Ariz. 131, 224 P.2d 199; Chavarria v. Industrial Commission, 99 Ariz. 315, 409 P.2d 26; Russell v. Industrial Commission, 104 Ariz. 548, 456 P.2d 918. The file reflects payment of compensation for total temporary disability from 4-6-66 through 9-28-66 and partial temporary disability through January 31, 1967. During this period there was medical evaluation by group consultation consisting of Dr. L.J. Brown, Dr. M.G. Peterson and Dr. T.H. Taber, Jr. and their report concluded with the following summary: Dr. Taber in a report dated February 6th stated "patient's symptoms are unrelated to any effects of his injury; the patient should not be under industrial care and he should be at a working status" and "that there was nothing additional to offer him in the way of care." Although petitioner and his physician claimed he was disabled and he had not returned to work the Commission on March 7, 1967 entered an award and finding which discontinued further payment of compensation or medical benefits and paragraph seven stated, "That the condition of said applicant has again become stationary with no disability." Petitioner through his attorney duly protested the Commission's findings of March 7th and a petition for rehearing was filed. While such matter was pending efforts were made to introduce petitioner to rehabilitative training and psychological as well as medical evaluation was continued. Petitioner then fifty-five years old with a third grade education was found to lack ability to adapt to a new vocation and the suggested occupation as nite watchman was not acceptable to him because of the lower salary. Medical testimony of Dr. Taber taken at the hearing restated the group consultation findings as follows: Petitioner's work record indicated that he worked fairly steady at hard manual labor from 1960 to October 1965. A report of Dr. George H. Yard submitted by petitioner confirmed that petitioner's "loss of function secondary to the accident and surgery was slight," and that "increased activity would produce near normal functioning." Dr. Carr also on behalf of petitioner stated that petitioner would be unable to perform heavy work because of residuals of postoperative adhesions from a herniated disc and that the accident was a contributing factor to the herniated disc. After considering the medical evidence the hearing officer concluded "the preponderance of medical testimony is to the effect that an arthritis condition is not causally related and furthermore, that this condition whatsoever its cause is not disabling." The Commission on April 11, 1969 entered the following order entitled: Decision Upon Hearing And Order Affirming Additional Findings And Award: Upon this appeal petitioner raises the following questions for review: The Commission in its award of April 11th found petitioner had failed to sustain the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his condition insofar as related to the accident had not become stationary with no disability. It then affirmed the void additional finding and award of March 7, 1967. As we said in Russell v. Industrial Commission, 104 Ariz. 548, 456 P.2d 918: Petitioner again filed for rehearing on the basis that a disability award should be made. This was denied by the Commission on the 27th of February, 1970 in an order which provided that the Commission had reconsidered the file and all reports and denied the petition for hearing because it contained no new or additional information nor raised any issues not considered at the prior hearings and subsequent adjudication. It is clear that the Commissioners twice passed upon the merits and Benites v. Industrial Commission, 105 Ariz. 517, 467 P.2d 911 cited by petitioner in his brief is not applicable to this case. Petitioner's contention is that the Commission was estopped by its award of May 20, 1966 from denying the existence of disability because such award in effect found that new, additional or previously undiscovered disability attributed to injury by accident referred to in such award was the removal of two discs. Such award clearly was conditional, providing, "accident benefits and compensation, if indicated until further order of this Commission." As this Court said in International Metal Products Division v. Industrial Commission, 99 Ariz. 73, 406 P.2d 838: In Chavarria v. Industrial Commission, supra, the wording of the award was identical to that under consideration and we held that finding number two must be construed as conditional, the award predicated on it must be held to be a temporary disability award authorized by A.R.S. § 23-1045, and therefore the Commission was at liberty later to determine whether petitioner was disabled so as to prevent him from returning to work. A.R. *342 S. § 23-1061, subsec. C and A.R.S. § 23-1044 gave the Commission continuing jurisdiction over a matter in much the same manner as A.R.S. § 25-321 gives to the Superior Court jurisdiction to modify a judgment affecting alimony, support or custody of children. The award was temporary and having reserved jurisdiction over the case the commissioners were required to determine the extent of disability, but in such case the claimant has the burden of establishing his disability. When there is a conflict in the evidence and experienced expert witnesses reach opposite conclusions concerning the source or extent of a worker's disability this Court will not say that the Industrial Commission was required to accept one opinion over the other. Condos v. Industrial Commission, 92 Ariz. 299, 376 P.2d 767. Conflicting medical testimony on whether disability resulted from injury or from disease supports the award for temporary disability only. Almanza v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 57 Ariz. 150, 112 P.2d 215. The award finding that petitioner's condition insofar as related to the industrial episode of May 27, 1960 has become stationary with no disability is affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HAYS, V.C.J., and UDALL, J., concur. NOTE: Justice JAMES DUKE CAMERON did not participate in the determination of this matter. [1] This matter is decided under the law as it existed prior to January 1, 1969.