Title: Hunt v. Industrial Commission
Citation: 107 Ariz. 569, 490 P.2d 575
Docket Number: 10591-PR
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 1971

107 Ariz. 569 (1971) 490 P.2d 575 Orval HUNT, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, American Smelting and Refining Company, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. No. 10591-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. November 10, 1971. Chris T. Johnson, Phoenix, for petitioner. Evans, Kitchel &amp; Jenckes, by Stephen W. Pogson, Phoenix, for respondent employer. William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, Phoenix, The Industrial Commission of Arizona. Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, State Compensation Fund. CAMERON, Justice. We granted the petition of Orval Hunt to review the decision and opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which affirmed the finding and award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona denying petitioner's request to reopen. See Hunt v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz. App. 505, 484 P.2d 658 (1971). We are called upon to determine whether a workman may successfully reopen his claim based only upon a change in his earning capacity, without showing any change in his physical condition. Claimant suffered an industrial injury in 1951 and received a 15% disability award in 1959. He filed five petitions for reopening *570 from 1967 to 1969, the last one resulting in the present case, in which he alleged a greater loss of earning capacity. At the hearing the referee stated the question as follows: The Commission refused to reopen, contending that the claimant had failed to produce any medical evidence to sustain his contention. The Court of Appeals agreed that claimant had failed to carry his burden of proof, and held that when a petition to reopen is filed alleging both a change in physical condition and loss of earning capacity, "[t]he burden to prove all of the elements involved under both statutes" is petitioner's. 14 Ariz. App. 505, 506-507, 484 P.2d 658, 659-660 (1971). Almost two months later, the Court of Appeals filed a supplemental opinion acknowledging that it had erred in citing procedural rules of the Commission, but that in all other respects the award was the same. Hunt v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz. App. 126, 486 P.2d 806 (1971). In that opinion there was a dissent contending the claim should be reopened on the basis of § 23-1044, subsec. F A.R.S. We agree with the dissent. We feel that such an interpretation is far too restrictive and narrow and that a petition to reopen may be granted upon the showing of either a change of physical condition, § 23-1044, subsec. F, par. 1 A.R.S., or a reduction in earning capacity arising out of the industrial injury, § 23-1044, subsec. F, par. 2 A.R.S. § 23-1044, subsec. F A.R.S. reads in pertinent part: A short history of § 23-1044, subsec. F A.R.S. may be helpful. In 1925, the Seventh Legislature passed a Workmen's Compensation Act. That year the people also approved a constitutional amendment, which is presently Article 18, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. It reads: In 1949 this court interpreted the reopening powers and duties of the Commission in the following fashion: In 1953, the legislature passed § 23-1044, subsection F A.R.S., which reads as follows: This legislative act deleted the claimant's opportunities to reopen absent a deteriorating physical condition. The Supreme Court, faced with the argument that the legislature was now reducing the workman's possible claims, in violation of Article 18, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution, unanimously agreed: After the Adkins decision, supra, the legislature passed the amended § 23-1044, subsec. F A.R.S. which enacts, almost word for word, the Supreme Court determination in Adkins. To require any more than a prima facie showing of the relationship between the decreased earning capacity and the pre-existing injury would be contra to Adkins, supra, and to the clear legislative intent as set forth in the present § 23-1044, subsec. F, par. 2 A.R.S. The opinions of the Court of Appeals, Division One, are vacated. The award of the Industrial Commission is set aside. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HAYS, V.C.J., UDALL, and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.