Opinion ID: 2365354
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interpreting most recent edition

Text: ¶ 5 The administrative rule at issue, A.A.C. R20-5-113(B), provides as follows: When a physician discharges a claimant from treatment, the physician [s]hall determine whether the claimant has sustained any impairment of function resulting from the industrial injury. The physician should rate the percentage of impairment using the standards for the evaluation of permanent impairment as published by the most recent edition of the American Medical Association in Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, if applicable. We interpret the provisions de novo, apply[ing] the same rules in construing both statutes and rules. Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 212 Ariz. 407, 412 ¶ 18, 132 P.3d 1187, 1192 (2006). ¶ 6 The question presented is which edition of the AMA Guides the Rule means by its reference to the most recent edition. The term most recent is commonly understood as giving perpetual duration to a statute or rule that relies on changing facts and new developments or would otherwise require frequent updating. Cf. City of Phoenix v. Superior Court (Ariz. State Hosp.), 139 Ariz. 175, 178, 677 P.2d 1283, 1286 (1984) (preferring interpretation that gives a statute a fair and sensible meaning). This suggests that an evolving standard was intended. Indeed, if the ICA had meant most recent edition to apply only to the Fifth Edition, it likely would simply have identified that edition by number. We therefore read A.A.C. R20-5-113(B) as referring to standards in the edition of the AMA Guides most recently published before the claimant's impairment is rated. ¶ 7 This interpretation comports with the use of the phrase most recent in other rules and statutes. Several statutes and rules require submission or retention of most recent documents such as financial statements or receipts. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 3-609(A) (2002) (requiring submission of financial statements for the most recent complete fiscal year); A.A.C. R20-5-203(A)(3) (requiring submission of the most recent certified annual financial statement); A.A.C. R20-2-707(E) (requiring retention of receipts for the three most recent deliveries of ... motor fuel). It would frustrate the purpose of those provisions to require submission or retention of outdated documents (those existing when the rule or statute became effective) despite the passage of time and the existence of more current documents. The operation of several other statutes depends on data from the most recent census. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 1-215(31) (2002 & Supp.2010) (defining population based on the most recent United States decennial census); A.R.S. §§ 5-110(I) (2002); 9-132 (2008); 11-254.02(A) (2001); 12-284.03 (2003 & Supp. 2010); 13-3826 (2010); 42-16153(A) (2006 & Supp.2010); 48-3620(E) (2004 & Supp.2010). The legislature undoubtedly did not intend to require reliance on stale census data despite the completion of new decennial censuses. Provisions that use the term most recent therefore anticipate and incorporate changes and developments, even those that occur after the effective date of a statute or rule. ¶ 8 Historical practice of the ICA also suggests that most recent edition means the newest version extant when a claimant's impairment is rated. The prior version of the Rule, much like the current one, recommended that impairment be rated according to the standards for the evaluation of permanent impairment as published by the American Medical Association in Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, if applicable. 7 Ariz. Admin. Reg. 25 (Jan. 5, 2001). Although the earlier version of the Rule did not include the words most recent edition, parties and courts regularly referred to each new edition as it became available. See, e.g., Simpson v. Indus. Comm'n, 189 Ariz. 340, 341, 942 P.2d 1172, 1173 (App. 1997) (citing the Fourth Edition of the AMA Guides, adopted in 1993, even though the Second Edition was in effect when the then-current version of the Rule was promulgated in 1987). Thus, even without the addition of the words most recent edition, courts and practitioners were interpreting the Rule to recommend use of the current edition as though the Rule contained that language. It appears that the amending language simply codified this accepted practice. ¶ 9 This interpretation also leads to the more sensible result. Reference to the current version of the AMA Guides allows the doctor to consider the latest medical developments when determining impairment. Gutierrez's reading of most recent edition, in contrast, would require the physician to look up A.A.C. R20-5-113(B), determine its effective date, find which version of the AMA Guides was the most recent edition when the Rule became effective, and possibly rely on an outdated, superseded version of the Guides when rating impairment. Reading the Rule as referring to the newest edition of the Guides precludes this impractical result and allows consideration of medical advancements. See State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247, 251 ¶ 17, 34 P.3d 356, 360 (2001) (finding a result absurd if it is so ... inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion) (internal citation omitted).