NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, Petitioner Employer,

SCF ARIZONA, Petitioner Carrier,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

RICK A. BUNCH, Respondent Employee.

No. 1 CA-IC 13-0054

Special Action - Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20072-560464

Carrier Claim No. 0730712 

Allen B. Shayo, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD SET ASIDE

COUNSEL

SCF Arizona, Phoenix

By John W. Main

Counsel for Petitioners Employer and Carrier
2

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Andrew F. Wade

Counsel for Respondent

Taylor & Associates, PLLC, Phoenix

By Thomas C. Whitley

Counsel for Respondent Employee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

THOMPSON, Judge:

¶1 This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission 

of Arizona (ICA) award and decision upon review awarding the 

respondent employee (claimant) mileage expenses he incurred for travel 

to receive medical treatment. One issue is presented on appeal: whether 

the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by awarding the claimant

mileage reimbursement for his travel from Flagstaff to Phoenix, when 

medical treatment was available in Flagstaff. Because the evidence of 

record did not establish that the claimant had to travel to Phoenix to 

obtain treatment, we set aside the award.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(2) (2003), 23-951(A) (2012), and Arizona 
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

3

Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10.1 In reviewing findings and 

awards of the ICA, we defer to the ALJ’s factual findings, but review 

questions of law de novo. Young v. Indus. Comm’n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270, ¶ 14, 

63 P.3d 298, 301 (App. 2003). We consider the evidence in a light most 

favorable to upholding the ALJ’s award. Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 

Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16, 41 P.3d 640, 643 (App. 2002). 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

¶3 The claimant lived in Flagstaff and performed maintenance 

work at the petitioner employer’s, City of Flagstaff’s (Flagstaff’s),

wastewater treatment plant. On August 9, 2007, he sustained an 

industrial neck and back strain. The claimant filed a workers’ 

compensation claim, which was accepted for benefits by the petitioner 

carrier, SCF Arizona (SCF). The claimant received extensive conservative 

treatment in Flagstaff from an orthopedic surgeon, a pain management 

specialist, and a neurosurgeon. 

¶4 The claimant’s claim was eventually closed with a 5% 

unscheduled permanent partial impairment, no loss of earning capacity 

 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules 

cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

4

(LEC), and a supportive care award. The supportive care award 

provided: 

Notice of Supportive Care issued 7/2/2010 is hereby 

rescinded. Notice of Supportive Care issued 6/11/2010 is

hereby amended as follows: Supportive Care under the 

management of Randall Scott, MD to include 4 office visits per

yr., 10 physical therapy sessions per yr., 1 diagnostic study per 

yr., medications and up to 2 radiofrequency denervations per 

yr. (performed by John Ledington, MD) Supportive care will 

be reviewed annually and may be closed without notice if not 

used within one year.

The claimant testified that after his claim closed, he continued to have the 

same neck pain, a 7 or 8 on a scale of 10, but the only treatment he was 

offered was the radiofrequency denervation. 

¶5 Because of the claimant’s ongoing neck pain, his attorney 

recommended a consultation with Daniel Lieberman, M.D., a Phoenix 

neurosurgeon. The claimant discussed this recommendation with his

family practitioner, Dr. Scott, and obtained a referral to see Dr. Lieberman. 

Dr. Lieberman examined the claimant and reported: 

Assessment and Plan: 

Rick has a right C6 radiculopathy and neck pain after C5/6 

disc hernation. His history, and the absence of pathology at 

any other level, strongly suggest this was due to his 

industrial injury. 

He has failed excellent conservative care, I’d recommend 

ACDF at C5/6. The r/b/a were described to him in detail. 
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

5

He is medically fit for the procedure with routine 

preoperative evaluation. 

The claimant filed a petition to reopen and attached Dr. Lieberman’s 

report. The petition eventually was granted, and the claimant underwent 

the recommended surgery. 

¶6 The claimant testified that following Dr. Lieberman’s 

surgery, his residual neck pain is a 1 on a scale of 10, and he feels better 

since surgery than he has at any other time since the industrial injury. 

The claimant next filed for an A.R.S. § 23-1061(J)2 hearing to request 

reimbursement of his travel expenses from Flagstaff to Phoenix for Dr. 

Lieberman’s treatment. The claim was denied for benefits, and the matter 

proceeded to an ICA hearing. 

¶7 The ALJ held one hearing for testimony from the claimant. 

He then entered an award granting the mileage reimbursement (Award). 

SCF timely requested administrative review, but the ALJ summarily 

affirmed the Award. SCF next brought this appeal. 

 2 Section 23-1061(J) provides that a claimant may request an investigation 

by the ICA into the payment of benefits, which the claimant believes that 

he is owed but has not been paid.
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

6

DISCUSSION

¶8 Under Arizona law, an industrially injured claimant is 

entitled to receive payment of his medical expenses. See A.R.S. § 23-1021

(2013). These expenses include all reasonably required medical, surgical, 

and hospital benefits. See A.R.S. § 23-1062(A) (1995). Whether a benefit is

reasonably required under the statute is a question for the ALJ. Regnier v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 146 Ariz. 535, 539, 707 P.2d 333, 337 (App. 1985).

¶9 Section 23-1062(A) is silent as to travel expenses, and the 

Arizona Workers’ Compensation Act typically is construed to exclude the 

payment of travel expenses incurred while obtaining industrially related 

medical treatment. Martinez v. Indus. Comm’n, 175 Ariz. 319, 321-22, 856 

P.2d 1197, 1199-2000 (App. 1993); see also 5 Arthur Larson and Lex K. 

Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 94.03[2], at 94-48 (2013).3 We 

distinguished Martinez in Carr v. Industrial Commission, 197 Ariz. 164, 3 

P.3d 1084 (App. 1999). 

¶10 In Martinez, the claimant, lived, worked, was injured, and 

received treatment in the Phoenix area. 175 Ariz. at 320-21, 856 P.2d at 

 3 Arizona’s workers’ compensation statutes do provide for reimbursement 

of reasonable travel expenses when a claimant must travel at the behest of 

the employer, carrier, or ICA for medical examinations or treatment. See

A.R.S. § 23-1026 (A); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R20-5-116(A).
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

7

1198-99. The travel expenses for which that claimant sought 

reimbursement were all incurred in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Id. In 

Carr, the claimant lived in a rural area outside of Seligman, Arizona. 197 

Ariz. at 165, ¶ 2, 3 P.3d at 1085. The closest available medical treatment 

was in Flagstaff, Arizona, a 230 mile round trip from his home. Id. at 165-

66, ¶ 4, 3 P.3d at 1085-86. We concluded that without payment of travel 

expenses, the claimant effectively was precluded from receiving the 

medical benefits to which he was entitled under the Arizona Workers’

Compensation Act. Id. at 167, ¶ 12, 3 P.3d at 1087. For that reason, we

held “that an injured worker who must travel outside the area in which he 

or she resides to receive treatment is entitled to reimbursement for travel 

expenses.” Id.4

¶11 The facts in this case fit neither Martinez nor Carr. Unlike 

Martinez, the claimant did in fact travel outside of the area where he lived, 

worked, and was injured to receive medical treatment. Unlike Carr, the 

claimant did not live in a rural area with no access to medical care without 

a long commute. In fact, the evidence of record established that there 

 4 We recently held that travel expenses are medical benefits for purposes 

of the two year limitations period for a workers’ compensation claimant to 

file a medical expense reimbursement request within the meaning of 

A.R.S. §§ 23-1021, - 1062 (A), and – 1062.01(C). See Drew v. Indus. Comm’n, 

232 Ariz. 36, 39, ¶ 11, 301 P.3d 202, 205 (App. 2013).
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

8

were a number of medical specialists available to the claimant in the 

Flagstaff area.

¶12 Although the ALJ in this case recognized the “must travel” 

standard articulated in Carr, he did not apply it. The ALJ found that 

“when an injured worker meets his burden of proving that travel out of 

town is necessary to obtain medical care for the industrial injury, then the 

defendant carrier is liable for travel expenses.” The evidence here 

established that the claimant had received extensive conservative 

treatment in Flagstaff, but despite that treatment, he had severe ongoing 

pain. Based on these facts, we agree with the ALJ that it was reasonable 

for the claimant to seek medical care from another physician. However, 

because claimant failed to show that he couldn’t get such treatment in 

Flagstaff, it was error to award him reimbursement for his travel expenses 

to Phoenix as “necessary.”

¶13 A claimant typically has an unrestricted right to select a 

treating physician. See generally Estes Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 23 Ariz. App. 

370, 376, 533 P.2d 678, 684 (1975). Upon notice to the carrier, the claimant 

may obtain reasonably required medical treatment without obtaining 

prior carrier approval. See Lasiter v. Indus. Comm’n, 173 Ariz. 56, 61, 839 

P.2d 1101, 1106 (1992). While courts in other states have interpreted their

medical benefits statutes to include travel expenses, we have not done so 
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF v. SCF ARIZONA

Decision of the Court

9

in Arizona. As we stated in Martinez, this is an issue more appropriately 

directed to the legislature and we decline to take that step here. Id. at 322-

23, 856 P.2d at 1200-01. 

¶14 Because the evidence of record did not establish that the 

claimant had no choice but to travel to Phoenix to obtain medical 

treatment, we set aside the award of mileage reimbursement.