Title: Black v. Industrial Commission
Citation: 361 P.2d 402, 89 Ariz. 273
Docket Number: 7044
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: April 26, 1961

89 Ariz. 273 (1961) 361 P.2d 402 Charles E. BLACK, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Defendant Insurance Carrier, and Arizona Flour Mills, Inc., Defendant Employer, Respondents. No. 7044. Supreme Court of Arizona. April 26, 1961. *274 Klass &amp; Welliever, Phoenix, for petitioner. C.E. Singer, Jr., Phoenix, for respondent The Industrial Commission. Donald J. Morgan, James D. Lester, Edward E. Davis and Lorin G. Shelley, Phoenix, of counsel. JENNINGS, Justice. Petitioner Charles E. Black, (hereinafter called claimant) obtained a writ of certiorari to review an award of respondent The Industrial Commission entered May 11, 1959, denying him compensation, and a finding and award entered January 8, 1960, denying claimant's application for compensation or in the alternative petition to reopen before the Commission. Claimant permitted twenty days to lapse from the date of the finding and the award of noncompensable claim of May 11, 1959, without filing any objection to that finding. On May 27, 1959 claimant was seen by Dr. Michael N. Spirtos, M.D. and beginning on that date for the first time received blood bromide tests, specific tests for determining exposure to methyl bromide gas, which for the first time allegedly connected claimant's disability to an occupational cause, methyl bromide gas fumes. Tests were apparently not concluded prior to the end of the twenty-day period allocable to filing for rehearing, as evidenced by Dr. Spirtos' letter to the Commission dated August 17, 1959. Thereafter, and on the *275 15th of October, 1959, claimant filed an application for compensation or in the alternative petition to reopen before the Commission. The application was based upon claimant's previously undiscovered disability. On January 8, 1960, the Commission entered its finding and award as follows: The Commission contended that it has no jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's application for compensation or his alternative petition to reopen. Rule 37 of the Industrial Commission reads as follows: This Court has consistently held that when such procedure is not followed within the specified period, the matter becomes res judicata. Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. Kinsey, 61 Ariz. 127, 144 P.2d 547; Nevitt v. Industrial Commission, 70 Ariz. 172, 217 P.2d 1039. Although the Commission could retain jurisdiction for the purpose of altering findings upon a justifiable showing that a change in the physical condition of the workman so warrants it, it does not have continuing jurisdiction for indefinite periods of time for all purposes. Hale's Estate v. Industrial Commission, 78 Ariz. 202, 277 P.2d 1014. Though claimant contends the evidence elicited from Dr. Spirtos constitutes *276 a showing of new or additional or previously undiscovered disability, we do not agree with this conclusion. Certainly the disability is no different nor is it more aggravated than at the time of the original hearing. At most it constitutes newly discovered evidence and this certainly has never been a ground of continuing jurisdiction. Hale's Estate v. Industrial Commission, supra. Nor can we with propriety make this an exception to the rule. Award affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., BERNSTEIN, V.C.J., and UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.