I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO M ONT P OL ANC O, Pet i t i onerE m pl oy ee,

v. T HE I NDUS T RI AL CO M M I S S I ON OF AR I Z ONA, R e sp o n d e n t, P I M A C OUNT Y, R esp o n d en t E m p loy er a n d Insu rer. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- I C 2006- 0025

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

S P E CI AL AC T I ON - I NDUS T RI AL CO M M I S S I ON

I C A C l ai m N o. 20012780067 I n s u r e rN o . 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 WW T hom as A
. I r es on, A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge

AW AR D A FF I RM ED
Les G i l be r t s on , J D , PC B yL es G i l bert s on
T he I ndus tr i al C om m i s s i on of A r i zona B yL au ra L
. M cG rory
G oeri ng , R ob ert s, R ub i n, B rogna, En os & Tr e a d we l l

- Ru b i n , P
. C. B yPam el a Tre adw el l

- R ubi n and E l i zabe th L
. W arner T ucs on A t t orneyforPet i t i oner/ E m pl oy ee P h o e n ix A t t orneyforR es pondent

T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r R e sp o n d e n t E m pl oy erand I ns ur er M A R 29 2 007 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 I n t hi s s t atut or ys peci al act i on, pet i t i onerM ontPol anco c ont ends t he adm i nis trat i ve law j ud ge (A L J) err ed in den y i ng h is p e tit i on t o reope n h i s w orkers ’ compensa t i on cl aim
. T he A L J det erm i ned Pol anco ha d fai l ed t o demonstr at e “obj ect i ve ph y s i c a l fi nd i ng s of

[a ] c ha ng e i n [ Pol a nc o’ s ] c on di t i on ” a s r e qu i r e d b yA
. R. S. § 23- 1061( H )
. Pol anc o arg u es § 23- 1061( H ) i s uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o hi s cas e. Fi ndi ng no err or , w e af fi r m t he aw ar d. Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶2 “O n r evi ew of an I ndus t r ial C om m i s s i on aw ar d, w e mustvi ew the evi dence in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to s u s ta in in g th e In d u s tr ia l C o m m is s io n ’s f in d in g s a n d a w a rd .” R o b erts v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 162 A r i z. 108, 110, 781 P. 2d 586, 588 ( 1989)
. Pol anco i nj ur ed h i s b a c k i n S e p t e m b e r2 0 0 1 , i n t h e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o ym e n tw i t h P i m a C o u n ty,
w hi l e l i ft ing a roc k outof a manhol e. H i s s ubs equentw or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m w as
a c c e p ted f

o r b e n e f its, an d h e u n d e rw e n t d isk e c to m ysu rg e ry . P o lan c o ’s c laim w a s c lo se d in February2003, buthe cont i nued t o r ece i ve tr eatm entforhi s back i nj ury , “i ncl udi ng cauda l
e p id u ra l in

je c tio n s ” th a t “ m a rk e d ly im p ro v e d [ h is ] p a in a n d a llo w e d h im to w o rk f u ll- tim e .” A ft er an i nd ust ri a l m o to r v ehicl e acci den ti n A ug ust20 04 , t he inj ect i on s becam e l ess eff ect i ve. I n l at e 2005, hi s phy s i ci an, D r . R andal l Prus t , r ecomm ended Pol anco ha ve a s pi nal
c o rd s tim u la to r i m p la n te d to c o n tr o l h is p a in
.P olanco asser t s the g rant o f h is p et i t i on t o reope n w ou l d co m pen sat e him for “l ost 1 w ages due t o t he i nt r act abl e pai n s i nce f i l i ng the Pet i t i on t o R eopen” and “a nyw ages l os tfor th a t p e rio d o f

tim e in w h ich th e tre a tm e n t r e q u ire s h e b e o f f -w o rk ” in ste a d o f

ju st th e c o sts as s oci at ed w i t h i ns er t i on of the s pi nal cor d s t i m ul at orcover ed bythe s uppor t i ve ca r e aw ar d. A l th o u g h Po l a n c o a s s e r t s t h e ALJ “ e r r e d i n p r o v i d i n g [ t h e s p i n a l c o r d s t i mul a t o r ] under 3 ¶3 Pol anco fi led a p et i t i on t o r eopen hi s cl ai m i n N ovember2005, w hi ch the i ns ur erdeni ed. A tt he s ubs equenthear i ng on thatpet i t i on, D r . Prus tt es t i fi ed thats carr i ng i n Pol anco’ s s pi ne had w or s ened and w as caus i ng “more pai n” and “r educi ng the e ff icacy of the ca udal epi dur al s . ” Prus tt es t i fi ed the r epor t s pr epa red b y a radi ol ogi s tcompar i ng Pol anco’ s r es ul t s fr om m agnet i c r es onance i m agi ng ( M R I ) exami nat i ons of hi s s pi ne s how ed “s om e enha nci ng epi dur al t i s s ue, ” orchange s i n s cart i s s ue, nea r P o la nco’ s s pi nal nerve
ro o ts . P ru s t a d m itte d , h o w e v e r, t h a t h e h a d n o t p e rs o n a lly re v ie w e d th e M R I f ilm s . ¶4 D r . K ur tSchr oedert es t i fi ed he had r evi ew ed M R I fi l m s of Pol anco’ s s pi ne and th o se im a g e s co n tain e d n o “ o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e o f a n e w , a d d iti o n a l o r p re v io u sly

u n d is c o v e re d c o n d itio n ” o r a “ w o rs e n in g b e tw e e n 2 0 0 2 a n d 2 0 0 6 o f [ P o la n c o ’s ] s c a r t is s u e .” Schr oederal s o s t at ed hi s phy s i cal exami nat i on of Pol anco di d noti ndi cat e any“w or s eni ng of the sca r t i s s ue. ” H e di d not expr es s an opi ni on w hether Pol anco w as a good candi dat e for
a s p in a l c o rd s tim u la to r. ¶5 A ft ert he hea r i ng, t he A L J found ther e w as “no m ater i al confl i ct ” thatthe epi dur al i nj ect i ons w er e “notas eff ect i ve anym or e, ” butadopt ed Schr oeder ’ s opi ni on “that there w ere n o o b

jec tiv e c h a n g es sh o w n o n [th e M R I fil m s]. ” T h e A L J d en ied P o lanc o ’s pet i t i on t o r eopen hi s cl ai m butaw ar ded hi m addi t i onal s up p o rt ive m edi cal m ai nt enanc e benef i t s for“i ns ert i on of a s pi nal cor d s t i m ul at or . ” Pol anco then fi l ed a r eques tforr evi ew 1s uppor t i ve ca r e” a nd i ns ert i on of the s pi nal cor d s t i m ul at ori s m or e pr oper l ychar act er i zed

as “ ac ti v e c are , ” w e d o n o t view this st atem en t as a n arg u m en t th e su p p o rt ive c are aw ard s houl d be s etas i de, buti ns t ead s i m pl yas s uppor t for hi s cont ent i on t hathi s m edi cal needs have c hanged. Pi m a C ount ydoes notar gue thatt he s uppor t i ve ca re aw ard sh o u l d be s et as i de. I n hi s r eques tforr evi ew fi l ed bel ow , Pol anco a r gued that, even i f the phy s i cal

2 fin d ing s req u ir em en t of A
. R
. S
. § 2 3 -10 6 1 (H ) w as co n sti tuti o n al, inse rt ion o f th e sp inal co rd stim u lato r w a s a “ n e w tre a tm e n t” a n d , thu s, w o u ld b e a p ro p e r b a sis f o r re o p e n in g h is c laim u n d er Stai nl es s St eel i r r es pect i ve of w hether he provi ded obj ect i ve phy s i cal fi ndi ngs . I n t hat cas e, w hi ch pr ece ded the phy s i cal fi ndi ngs r equi r ement am en d m entt o § 23- 1061( H ) , our su p rem e c o u rth eld “ a d iffe ren ce . . . in the m ed ical pro ce d u res n ec essa ryto tr ea t [an injury ]” w oul d s uppor tr eopeni ng a cl ai m . 144 A r i z. at19, 695 P
. 2 d at 2 6 8. A l t hough Pol anco m ent i ons thi s ar gum enti n pas s i ng i n hi s o p en ing br i ef, he ci t es no r el evants uppor t i ng author i tyand does not devel op i t fur t her
. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude he has w ai ved t hi s i s s ue 4 o f th a t d e c isio n , a ss e rtin g , in ter a lia, th a t § 2 3 -1 0 6 1 (H ) is u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to h is
cas e. T he A L J aff

i r m ed hi s aw ar d on r evi ew and thi s s t atut orys peci al act i on fol l ow ed.

D i s cus s i on ¶6 S e c t i o n 2 3
- 1 0 6 1 ( H) g o v e r n s t h e r e o p e n i n g o f wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i ms
a n d re q u ire s a n e m p lo y e e to p ro v e th e e x is te n c e o f “ a n e w , ad d iti o n a l o r p re v io u sly
un dis cov ered t em po rary or perm anen tcon dit i on ” t o reope n a clai m . A nd t he em ploy ee m ust
s h o w a c a u s a l re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e n e w c o n d itio n a n d a p ri o r i n d u s tr ia l in ju ry. Stai nles s S teel Sp ec ialt

y M fg. C o . v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 1 4 4 A ri z. 12 , 1 9 , 6 9 5 P
. 2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 8 (19 8 5 ). Sect i on 23- 1061( H ) w as m odi fi ed i n 1999 t o pr ecl ude r eopeni ng a cl ai m bas ed on an
e m p lo y e e ’s “ in c r e a s e d su b jec tiv e p a in if

th e p a in is n o t ac c o m p a n ied b ya c h a n g e in obj ect i ve phy s i cal fi ndi ngs . ” 1999 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 331, § 9. Pol anco’ s s ol e ar gum ent in th is s tatu to rysp e c ial a c tio n is th a t th e o b jec tiv e p h y sic a l f

in d in g s r e q u ir e m e n t is
uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o hi s cas e. “W e defe r ent i al l yr evi ew t he A L J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs 2a n d d o n o t a d d re s s its m e ri ts
. See A ri z. R
. C iv. A p p . P
. 1 3 (a)(6 ), 1 7 B A .R .S . (ap p ell an t’ s

br i ef must cont ai n ar gum ent w i t h ci t at i ons t o author i t y ) ; A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 10( k) , 17B A
. R
. S. ( Ar i z o n a Rul e s o f Ci v i l App e l l a t e Pr o c e d u r e a p p l yt o s p e c i a l a c t i o n r e v i e w of in d u stria l co m m iss io n a w a rd s); I n r e $26, 980. 00 U

. S. C ur r ency , 199 A r i z. 291, ¶ 28, 18 P. 3d 85, 93 ( A pp. 2000) ( “[A ppel l ee’ s] b ald as s ert i on i s offe r ed w i t houtel abor at i on orci t at i on to an y. . . lega l auth o ri ty
. W e w il l no t con side r i t. ”). 5 buti ndepende nt l yr evi ew hi s l egal concl us i ons . ” G ra m m a ti co v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 208 A r i z. 10, ¶ 6, 90 P. 3d 211, 213 ( A pp. 20 0 4 ). “W e an al y ze the cons t i tut i onal i t yof a s t atut e de novo, begi nni ng w i t h t he s t r ong pr es um pt i on thatthe s t atut e i s cons t i tut i onal
. ” I d. ¶7 T h e c o n stitu tio n a l b a sis f o r A riz o n a ’s w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n law is fo u n d in
ar t i cl e X V I I I , § 8 of the A r i zona Const i tut i on and

m andat es t hatan empl oy ee r ece i ve w or ker s ’ compe n s a t i o n i f the empl oy ee i s i nj ur ed i n “an yacc i dentar i s i ng outof and i n t he cour s e of .
. . empl oym ent , ” and t he i nj ury “i s caus ed i n w hol e, ori n part , or i s contr i but ed t o, by a nec es s aryr i s k ordangerof s uch empl oym ent , ora nec es s ary r i s k ordangeri nher enti n t he natur e ther eof, orb y fai l ur e of s uch empl oy erori t s agent s or empl oy ee orempl oy ees t o exer ci s e due c ar e. ” G ra m m a ti co v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 2 1 1 A ri z . 6 7 , ¶ 1 , 1 1 7 P .3 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 7 (2 0 0 5 ), quot i ng A r i z. C ons t . art . X V III , § 8 ( al t er at i on i n G ram m at i co ). Fora w or kert o be compens at ed foran i nj ur y , he ors he mustpr ove “both l egal and medi cal caus at i on. ” I d. ¶ 19. L egal caus at i on has t hree el em ents :

Fi r s t , t he em p loy ee m us thave be en ac t i ng i n t he cour s e of empl oym ent
. Secon d , the empl oy ee musthave s uffe r ed a personal i njuryfrom an acc i den tari si ng ou tof an d in t he co urse of s uch empl oym ent
. T hi r d, t he r es ul t i ng i nj urym us thave be en caused i n w ho l e or i n p art , or contr i bu t ed to, bya nece ssaryri sk of the empl oy ee’ s empl oym en t, ora nec es s aryr i s k ordanger i nher ent i n t he natur e of thatempl oym entort he empl oy er ’ s l ack of due c ar e.6

I d. “M edi cal caus at i on, i n contr as t , i s es t abl i s hed by s how i ng t hat t he acci dentcaus ed the i nj ur y . ” Id

. ¶ 2 0 ; see a lso D eS ch a a f v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 141 A r i z. 318, 320, 686 P. 2d 1288, 1290 ( A pp. 1984) ( “Legal caus at i on conce r ns w hetherthe i nj uryar os e out o f and i n t he
co u rse o f th e e m p loym en t. O n the oth er ha n d , m ed ical ca u sati o n o rdin aril yreq u ir es e x p ert
m edi cal t es t i m onyt o es t abl i sh that the i ndus t r i al acc i dentcaus ed the i nj ury . ”) ( ci t at i on
o m itted). ¶8 I n G r am m at i co , our s upr eme c our t s t at ed art i cl e X V I I I , § 8 “addr es s es l eg al
caus at i on” and de t erm i ned “the l egi s l atur e maynotdefi ne lega l ca u sat i on i n a w aythat confl i ct s w i t h [thats ect i on] beca us e the l egi s l atur e ‘ cannot enac tl aw s w hi ch w i l l s uper s ede
cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons adopt ed bythe peopl e. ’ ” 211 A r i z. 67, ¶¶ 19, 21, 117 P. 3d at790, 7 9 1 , qu oti ng K i l

pa tri ck v. Su

peri or C ou rt , 105 A r i z. 413, 416, 466 P. 2d 18, 21 ( 1970)
. B ut the courtal s o s t at ed, “A r t i cl e 18, Sect i on 8 does notl i m i tt he l egi s l atur e’ s pow er t o enac t l egi s l at i on aff

ect i ng m edi cal caus at i on, ” i d. ¶ 20; ther efor e, “the l egi s l atur e has s om e l at i tude t o es t abl i s h t he r equi s i t e medi cal caus at i on for w or ker s ’ compensa t i on r ecove r y . ” I d. ¶ 21. ¶9 P o lan c o re a so n s “ § 2 3 -1 0 6 1 (H ) e f f e c tiv e ly a b ro g a tes o th e rw ise c o m p e n sa b le cl ai m s fora cl as s of i nj ur i es , ” s peci fi cal l y , “s ubj ect i ve i nj ury , ” r egar dl es s of w hethert he empl oy ee c an s how caus at i on. Th u s , he ar gues the “obj ect i ve phy s i cal fi ndi ngs ” r equi r ement i m perm i s s i bl yl i m i t s l egal caus at i on beca us e “the A r i zona Const i tut i on r equi r es compensa t i on foral l i nj ur ed w or ker s
— not j us t t hos e w ho can pr ovi de obj ect i ve evi dence of
s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s
— orar e l uckyenough t o be fi l i ng t hei r cl ai m forthe fi r s tt i m e and not ju s t a tte m p tin g to re o p e n .”7

¶10 Ce n t r a l t o Po l a n c o ’ s a r g u me n ti s h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a ts u b j e c t i v e p a i n , s t a ndi ng al one, i s a compens abl e i nj ur yunder art i cl e X V I I I , § 8. A s w e under s t and hi s ar gum ent , he

r eas ons that , i f s ubj ect i ve pai n i s a compensa bl e i nj ury , then r equi r i ng obj ect i ve evi dence of th a t in ju rylim its a n e m p lo y e e ’s a b ili ty to sh o w leg a l c a u sa tio n b e c a u se th e e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e to “ sh o w th e u n -sh o w a b le— o b j ect i ve ev id e n c e o f

su b jec tiv e in ju ry .” R e ly in g p rim a rily
on Si m ps on v. I ndus tr i alC om m is s i on , 1 8 9 A riz
. 3 4 0 , 9 4 2 P .2 d 1 1 7 2 (A p p . 1 9 9 7 ), h e a ss e rts that ca se stan d s fo r th e p rop o sit ion that “d isab li n g p ain re su lt ing fro m a n in d u s tri al i n jury
cons t i tut es a com pens abl e i nj ur y . ” T he empl oy ee i n Si m ps on had s uffe r ed a ba ck and ne ck in ju ry. I d. at 342, 942 P. 2d at1174. T he A L J deni ed bene fi t s , fi ndi ng t he empl oy ee ha d not
s how n hi s i nabi l i t yt o r etur n t o w or k w as r el at ed t o hi s i nj uryand, i n the al t ernat i ve, det erm i ni ng hi s i nj ur yw as notcompensa bl e bec ause residu al pai n di d not“cons t i tut e a rat able perm anen t i m pairm ent un der t he .
. . [A m eri can M edical A ssocat i on ] G uides [ t o the E val uat i on of

P er m anent

I m pai r m ent ]
. ” I

d. D i vi s i on O ne of t hi s cour thel d t he empl oy ee h a d s h o w n h is m e d ic a l c o n d itio n w a s a ttr ib u ta b le to h is in d u s tr ia l a c c id e n t, id

. at343- 44, 942 P. 2d at1175- 76, and the A m er i can M edi cal A s s oci at i on G ui des w er e nott he excl us i ve
m eans by w hi ch t he empl oy ee coul d demonstr at e i m pai r m ent fr om an i nj urycaus ed bythat
a c c id e n t. I

d. at 346, 942 P. 2d at 1176. N othi ng i n Si m ps on s ugges t s t he empl oy ee ha d not p ro v id e d o b

je c tiv e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e o f h is in ju ry. See i d. at 34 3, 94 2 P
. 2d at11 75
. T hu s, Si m ps on does nothol d t hatpai n, s t andi ng al one, i s a compens abl e i nj ury ; i t hol ds onl ythatI n C as s ey v . I ndus tr i alC om m is s i on , 152 A r i z. 280, 283, 731 P. 2d 645, 6 4 8 ( A pp. 3 1987) , on w hi ch the empl oy ee i n Si m ps on v. I ndus tr i alC om m is s i on , 189 A r i z. 340, 344, 942 P
. 2d 11 72 , 11 76 (A pp . 19 97 ), rel i ed, D iv ision O ne o f t his cou rtst at ed an em ploy ee “m ust es t abl i s h the di s abl i n g ef fe ct o f the i ndus t r i al i nj uryi n or dert o es t abl i s h a perm anent im p a irm e n t. T h is is tr u e w h e n re sid u a l p a in is th e p e rm a n e n t in ju ryb e c a u se p a in is compensa bl e as an i m p airm en tonl yw hen i ti s di s abl i ng. ” A l t hough the courti n C as s ey descri bed “res i du al pain” as an “i njury , ” i tdid n o t d efi ne the t erm “i njury ” no r address w hethers uch pai n i s an i nj ur yfor t he purpos e of art i cl e X V I I I , § 8, buti ns t ead c ons i der ed w h e th e r d isa b lin g p a in w a s re lev a n t in d e ter m in in g th e e m p lo y e e ’s d e g re e o f im p a ir m e n t. 1 5 2 A ri z. at 28 1 , 2 8 3 , 7 3 1 P
. 2 d at 64 6 , 6 4 8 (em p loy ee h ad ch ron ic “tho rac o lum b ar sp rain” ). A ri zon a l aw al so perm i t s an em ploy ee t o recei ve com pen sat i on for gradual i njur i es. 4 S ee R eil ly v. I

n d u s. C o m m ’n , 1 A riz . A p p . 1 2 , 1 5 , 3 9 8 P .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 (1 9 6 5 ); see al so Ford v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 145 A r i z. 509, 516- 17, 703 P. 2d 453, 460- 61 ( 1985) ( ci t i ng R e ill y ). 8 s u b j e c t i v e p a i n i s r e l e v a n t t o d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e o f i m p a i r m e n t r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n i n j u r y. 3 Im p a ir m e n t is n o t s yn o n ym o u s w ith in ju ry; im p a ir m e n t r e s u lts f ro m in ju ry. C f

. Mor eno v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 122 A r i z. 298, 299, 594 P. 2d 552, 553 ( A pp. 1979) ( “[The empl oy ee] fai l ed in h is bu rde n o f p roo f that an yfu n cti o n al i m p airm en t r esu lt ed fro m the in d u str ial injury
. ”). ¶11 A r i zona’ s cons t i tut i on and w or ker s ’ compensa t i on s t atut es do notdefi ne the t erm “i nj ur y . ” O urs upr eme cour t , how ever , has l ong hel d an ac ci dent al i nj uryoccur s “w hen
us ual exert i on l eads t o s om ethi ng actual l y br eaki ng orl ett i ng go w i t h an obvi ous s udden

or gani c ors tr uct ur alchange i n the body
. ” P hel ps D odge C or

p. v. C abar

ga , 79 A r i z. 148, 1 5 3 , 2 8 5 P .2 d 6 0 5 , 6 0 8 (1 9 5 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see a lso C a g a n ich v

. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 108 A ri z. 58 0 , 5 8 1 , 5 0 3 P
. 2 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 2 (19 7 2 ); P a u lley v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 91 A r i z. 266, 272, 371 P .2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 2 (1 9 6 2 ); S u n C o n trol T ile C o . v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 117 A r i z. 268, 270, 571 P. 2d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 6 6 (A p p . 1 9 7 7 ). A lth o u g h th e s e c a se s d e f in e d “ a c c id e n tal in

ju ry ,” th e c o u rts 4 focus ed thei ranal y s i s on w hetherthe empl oy ee ha d s u ff ere d an acc i dentundert hatPol anco c i t es t he Si xt h E di t i on of B lack’s Law D i ct i onar y 7 8 6 (1 9 9 0 ) (e m p h a sis 5 del et ed) , w hi ch i ncl udes “[p] hy s i cal pai n” i n i t s defi ni t i on of “bodi l y i nj ury . ” T hatphr as e, h o w e v e r, w a s re m o v e d f ro m th e d e f

in itio n o f “ b o d ily in

ju ry” in th e s u b s e q u e n t e d itio n . See B lack’s Law D i ct i onar

y 7 8 9 (7th ed
. 1 9 9 9 ) (em p h asis d eleted ).

9 defi ni t i on. T he def

i ni t i on of “a cci dent al i nj ury , ” how ever , nece s s ar i ly en compass es the d e f in iti o n o f

“ in ju ry .” M o re o v e r, A r iz o n a ’s d e f in iti o n is c o n sis ten t w ith th o se f o u n d in tr e a tis e s a n d a d o p te d in o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n s . See B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary 801 ( 8th ed. 2004) (“ bo dil y i njury ” i s “ [ p ] h y s i c a l d a ma g e t o a p e r s o n ’ s b o d y ” ) ; 3 Ar t h u rL a r s o n & L e x . K. 5 L a rs o n , L a rs o n ’s Wo rke rs ’Co mp e n s a t i o n L a w c h . 5 5 , at 5 5 -1 (2 0 0 6 ) (“ [ p ]e rso n a l in ju ry ” is
a “ h a r m f u l ch a n g e in th e b o d y ” ); Fr i t t s v. Saf et y N at ’ lC as . C or

p. , 163 S. W
. 3d 673, 680 ( T enn. 2005) ( “A n ‘ i nj ur y ’ i ncl udes a change i n anypar tof a pe r s on’ s s y s t em t hatpr oduces h a rm o r p a in o r le ss e n s th e n a tu ra l u se o r c a p a b ili tyo f th e b o d y .”); L an e C o. v. Sa un ders , 326 S. E
. 2d 702, 703 ( V a. 1985) ( i nj ury i s “‘ an obvi ous s udden m echa ni cal o r s t ructur al
c h a n g e in th e b o d y ’” ), q u o tin g V a . E lec . & P o w e r C o . v . C o g b ill , 288 S. E
. 2d 485, 486 ( V a. 1982)
. I ndeed, t he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our thas s peci fica l l yexcl uded pai n fr om t he d e f in itio n o f

in ju ry. Fenw ick v . O kl a. Stat e P enitenti ary , 792 P. 2d 60, 62 ( O kl a. 1990) ( “Thi s C our t has cons i s t ent l y hel d t hat phy s i cal i nj ury m us t be pr es ent for a di s abi l i t yt o be compensa bl e. J us tas phy s i cal s ym pt om s s uch as pai n, t i ngl i ng of the l i m bs , and naus ea do

n o t con sti tute ac cide n tal injury , n eith er d o es m en tal str ess.”) (fo o tno tes o m itted). ¶12 S u bj e c tiv e p a in d o e s n o t f a ll u n d e r A ri z o n a ’s d e f in itio n o f

a n in j u r y. T her efor e, beca us e s ubj ect i ve pai n i s not an i nj uryw i t hi n the meani ng of art i cl e X V I I I , § 8 of the A r i zona Const i tut i on, § 23- 1061( H ) does not uncons t i tut i onal l y el i m i nat e i tas a type10

of compensa bl e i nj ur y . A nd t he obj ect i ve phy s i cal fi ndi ngs r equi r ementof § 23- 1061(H ) does notaddr es s ei t herl egal orm edi cal caus at i on. T hat r equi r ement i ns t ead m akes cl eart hat
su b jec tiv e p a in a lo n e c a n n o t su p p o rt a p e tit io n to re o p e n a c la im . R a th e r, su b jec tiv e p a in

m us t be di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he degr ee of i m pai r m ent r es ul t i ng fr om an obj ect ive phy s i cal
c h a n g e . See Si m

ps on , 189 A r i z. at346, 942 P. 2d at1178. ¶13 W e a f

f ir m th e a w a rd
.

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge