we have three planes that faith we are asking the court to reverse summary judgment on the first one and all that is how to reinstate the verdicts on claims two and three without a trial on discovery in the punitive damages to the predominant issue that runs through the defendant's arguments or the police arguments here and below is that we somehow interfered with their investigation of the claim by not signing a medical record release authorisation that has no impact on any one of the claims because if a release authorization was signed what would it have accomplished the misc us to of soon the claim adjuster interviewed christy larson on august ninth in chrissy larson told her i have no prior preexisting low bass issues so even if the release authorization was given for that that would have never turned up anything on that and when she did get counsel why she didn't give it was on september fifteenth they sent someone to her to sign this release authorization and she said now that you've denied the claim i am not signing anything until i meet with my lawyer my understanding was that the initial authorization that was presented was in blank essential a give me all your records of everything you've ever had in your entire life type of others ation and she declined that one and then that later there was some sort of accommodation that was reached  c are there other authorizations that were signed and and what the and what records were available yes judge walken there was release authorizations for all the records related to this claim even prior to the accommodation with yale j those were sent over but those there where is that in the record that's it's certainly in the summary judgment proceedings in the in the briefs on that mr sarkozy off mailed those over on october the twentieth i believe mailed him release authorizations but those were for the places that you receive treatment high desert clinic in sierra vista regional medical center records related to a claim and that is documented in exhibit one hundred two i believe it's page two of that that she had all the medical records from sierra vista august one and august twel and high desert of august five she had all those already and when she went to and i am me in september that same day she went to an emergency room because she had to drive down to tucson to get nih and me and then drive back was bothering her so she was seen at another hospital because her back was bothering her those records were provided in december when everyone learned about those the records that they fought over at the industrial commission aren't even really medical records they're planes they come from the insurance services organization when ever someone has any kind of claim you can now basically push a button and get a printout history of every claim related to this person or anyone at the address where they live or with a similar type of name or the same social security number and those records simply didn't five of them weren't even for this krispy larson and the others dated back to one nine hundred ninety five two thousand two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight in two thousand and five and did the adjuster have those records for index records she had two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight because those were workers compensation claims and by law a carrier is allowed immediate access to all prior workers compensation claims none of them had anything to do with the low back one of the facts that keeps getting looked over in this case company of going up into management and all she wanted to do is get medical treatment and go back to work and this fair debate ability that the first claim was thrown out on the trial judge pointed out well she questioned the mechanism of the injury and i think what gets lost is the holding in zelig each that fair debate ability isn't the end of the inquiry that puts out bad practices and bad motives because what we see in that first claim is they came up with for different reasons inconsistent defenses so these weren't really i think fair believes these were just avoidance strategies by misc us to send the first one she said was well stepping down off the chair can't hurt you back that was refuted by their own i am me who said this injury  can happen that way and she needs treatment and she can't work the second one they came up with right after the i me came back they said well there's some discussion about a truck unloading the truck but they never did anything to investigate that unloading of the truck well and my impression was that any statements about unloading the truck were combined with statements about painting was there any document that said the injury was caused by loading a truck that didn't also mention the incident with the painting they asked me i am a doctor to investigate that and she explained that the unloading of the truck was being done at the same time that she was painting and she didn't unload the truck there she had her going on that day and she said we've been working hard for two weeks i've been painting for days and load a truck and him as a painting is always in there is what i'm trying to get at is that nineteen is over ok yes your honor thank you i'd like to go to this three which says snow time from work missed in excess of seven days now what kind of work goes into making that determination because she had the medical records of august one saying you're off for five days she had the records from high desert on august five say no work until you get treatment for this from an orthopod and then an i am in september says this is a work related injury and she can't work they fulfilled the seven day threshold so the fact that they're saying never any entitlement to disability benefits is just plainly false and one of the things that say what was the disability payment if she were an injured worker and off work because of her injury that she sustained at work if that were true would the disability payments also be d wasn't really just fifty nine days from december to february it was however many it is from from mid august to february that's correct your honor that's correct and that's why there should have been a greater sense of urgency with that because what the workers compensation system represents is a trade off of tort rights and full compensation for expedited benefits and that's under the class under supreme court case law in arizona but it's also egon for a california case that gets has been cited in arizona that the good faith to do is determined by the purpose of the insurance the final claim was the failure to do anything about her need for more medical care because she wanted to go back to work she went to medicaid and got medical treatment on her own she got two out of three injections into her spine and felt so good three days before christmas she said dr please release me back to work i want to go back to work and that's what happened and so she went back to work and she cooperated me they knew about her release back to work the very next day because the claim filed as we please with communications by the claim adjuster with the company are you taking a back to work when is she coming back to work they said we're putting her on december thirtieth and she went back to work and then she quit in sierra vista right now mind and she had to move back to phoenix when she was homeless if i may jump in but you did want to reserve time for a bottle and you were cutting into that that being that the worker has no obligation to cooperate with the carrier when its investigative climb and it's more in this instance than just the five which provide an authorization there was from the very of this line fair questions about compensable that was due to the fact that the employer questioned the claim the employer complained a late reporting issue the employer provided information that at the time of the loss that the evidence would indicate that she declined to sign a blank authorization at a certain point is there anything beyond that yet yes your honor there is the day on august ninth the dead that the adjuster spoke with  larson for the first time she had contacted already the sierra vista location where she saw care and asked for their records they said this didn't come in as a work related claim we can't release the records to you so the adjuster called this larsen this  initial request for those records and without a blank authorization that one that was with regard well yes and no it was designed to allow the adjuster to receive records that were on the attached sheet so it was a two step process when you work with close to list the medical care she had received and then that authorization would blanket allow the adjuster to get the care on the attached sheet that was a there were two page document later i think positive showing on the bureau in the exarchs and that was never returned or so they got the list but not the underlying documents so they got the list not from this larson but from the bureau  index the adjuster then sent a blanket authorization to the worker to sign so that she could get records from those thirteen sites and that would include requests from the insurance carriers that reported it and requested it from any health care providers that she had seen relative to those reported climbs never came back and that was never provided the limited authorizations that were provided that counsel referenced an argument an october mr saka which sent to mr baker a limited release that allowed the carrier only to get records from september nineteenth up until the day of the authorization and only from was able to request i see a turn over prior claims that i ca had however if there's no hearing and there's no evidence taken then there is limited material filed with i c a in other words every doctor doesn't file every single report every objective test every piece of evidence with with i c a regarding the treatment that they're given and so when ms what mr baker testified in the record he was able to obtain was basically  reports of injury the had come in on those claims that were with i see and if there was a doctor that was providing treatment and there were a couple of pages of medical where doctors reported that they had seen her and given her care and the body part that was being treated but that was it and so mr baker then sent authorisations to mr circle with us and said we need to get these records and this is what we want and he sent numerous authorizations to these health care way to get it would be to go to the provider and ask for it but you can't get it from the provider on other clime unless you have an authorization and so hard work prior climbs her lower back injuries they were seeking you well you couldn't tell during the indicate lower there were some that indicated thoracic i believe in the force and testified at one point back but then she came back into that upper back so that the bottom line was the the carrier should have to just take a workers work for the cure is to be able to get records and look at them and determine whether or not this is something that would contribute to the claim to the cause of the claim will be the cline and hartford simply wasn't allowed that and the cooperation is more than just not providing a release of the beginning of the slaying appellants attorney wrote the adjuster and said you are not allowed to contact my client that's fine but you also not allowed to have any contact with the healthcare providers and so what this did in fact was that precluded here just her from having contact with the doctors that were treating her for this claim to ask questions like are you treating her has she been in what your diagnosis what's your prognosis have you referred her are you giving her objective test essentially what happened on the scoring was the appellant and her attorney controlled what documents they chose the carrier to have they controlled the access they picked and chose what the i meet doctor was able to see and what the carrier was able to see and there is no authority to support that that's the appropriate conduct in arizona and fact the law recognizes there's a duty to cooperate could you talk a little bit about the statutory scheme that seems to say that a carrier or workers comp carrier at least must pay the claim at least temporarily if they are unable in good faith to deny it within twenty one days could you revisable statute twenty three ten sixty one m and that provision only states that if you fail to dispute the claim within twenty one days of receipt of the i c a notification then you are liable for the arizona that limits the carrier to conduct in its investigation within twenty one days or that would require the carrier to pay during the pendency of the investigation as long as the denial is filed under su award out of i ca and that simply didn't happen here in this instance there was no way for the adjuster to make happen what needed to happen within the time period she wanted to i am me you have to g fifteen days notice of and i am me she wanted to get the records she was never given the authorization or the ability to get the records in fact under the standard that exists there had to be a showing that hartford intentionally deny the claim without a reasonable basis and that it knew it was doing so in this case the evidence reflected parts of never thought this plan was payable never believe that it was paid when it finally got some records in december after it had had to follow a motion to compel with the i c a and after its attorney was that look at some of the records that were paying a lot of money to continue to defend this climb we're going to just accept the climate we're going to move on that's what brief you talk a lot about all we have to investigate and it wouldn't be fair to make us pay without investigating and it seems to me that the scheme would allow you to investigate after you paid and that if you investigated and found the claim was no good you could at that point when you developed enough information to deny the claim you could then deny it and stop paying but that's how i read this maybe i'm wrong there's no law there's no case if there was i would have would have been in the briefing there's no law th interpret it that way and certainly whatever you pay there's no scheme in arizona where you can recoup money i'm not suggesting that i'm suggesting you could go on and investigate and if your investigation showed grounds for denial you could then stop paying there's not anything under the scheme or possession was a five day off work slip from sera vista which didn't say it was plated but there was five days off disability doesn't accrue until the seven days and then you had records that will said that she can continue to work you h was a discussion of not only of mccoy's testimony but also this stuff since testimony and there was a desert playing record that the appellant relies on that said she needed to seek work until she saw  subsection m of the statute and i guess i don't quite understand your your analysis of the carrier shall pay immediately compensation is if the claim were accepted from the level of interpretation there help me out with that well basically your honor the provision and the authority that interprets subsection and reflects that should the carrier never follow denial whether they whether it was in its commendable claim or not that they have lost the right to contest it and that they have accepted that kline however if the carrier does file the dispute within the twenty one day time period was from a little bit earlier in this case within the twenty one day time period then they're entitled to stand on the dispute and until something else happens they investigate it they can follow notice another notice of plain status or there could be and i see a determination that benefits were due however if i can say something there had to have been before there was any duty to pay anything there had to have been something come to the adjuster within the time period before the dispute that would have prompted payment and prior to the dispute which was actually made in this case on september seventh twenty ten there were no records provided to the adjuster to establish a sudden more than seven days of disability because that would have been the trigger prior to the denial was that she would have had to have known seven days of disability prior to the dispute and that wasn't submitted to her and also with is it clear that there was a denial of the claim within twenty one days yes  there is counsel i think judge will get asked opposing counsel number of questions about it was all along what arizona law requires in this context and opposing counsel said there's nothing in the statute or in the case law that require  for itself as well as the purpose of the worker's compensation law grammatic code is the supreme court's a case that says the purpose is a trade off of rights to get expedited benefits but there is no case law interpret in this statute yet in arizona because the only way we're going to get the statute interpret it is in the context of a bad faith case because the industrial commission has limited if you don't go to hearing now once a male j goes to hearing he says well this is a compensable claim so what's the remedy at that point their only remedy is to grant benefits the only way we get the statute interpreted is through case what it says is that they even if they pay because they weren't able to do not deny quickly enough they are still able to continue their investigation and stop paying if they develop the information that  should be denied that's exactly right seems like that's what the statute says and counsel seem to indicate that it didn't really say that or something and i just and what supports that interpretation is is the doctrine of impairing materia that we went through in the in the trial court that when you look at the next to its statutes that says prompt medical care disability benefits within twenty one days of notification that's a term of art that's the august twenty sixth date that the industrial commission ailsa to they have disclaimed august second they interviewed and the night it in the claim known saugus night the very first day they said we're going to deny this without any investigation well that what i'd like to get to is that i believe the manager did accuse christie larson of preexisting conditions and having taken oxycontin at some point but that was never investigated and it's not true and this is a woman who worked eight years or prior denny's franchises ten months she was coming to work hard trying to make a promotion in this company without any problems and all of this if you've got a preexisting condition they could have interviewed co employees to find out is there some preexisting olympe bachelorhood raises another question i had even if there were a preexisting condition does not worker's comp law in arizona provide for payment if a preexisting condition is exacerbated by a work related injury and they completely ignored that law that's manned their kids first is industrial commission riley there's a lot of cases it only takes two things three things really to have a compensable aggravation that is something that requires medical care that you didn't receive before that you wasn't necessary before or increased disability  ability to keep working has been impacted or organic change now an organic change would only show on m r i and that didn't occur jill she went to access but she's been working after ten months without problems and now all of a