Opinion ID: 2614917
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Effect of Prior Case Law

Text: The reasoning of Faulkner (the foundation for Sanchez and Wesolowski ) has been questioned by the court of appeals. See Wheeler, 22 Ariz. App. at 489, 528 P.2d at 875; Floyd Hartshorn Plastering Co., 16 Ariz. App. at 507 & n. 8, 494 P.2d at 407 & n. 8. It has been questioned by courts from other states, see First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. McNeil, 8 Va. App. 342, 381 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1989); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Walters, 141 Ga. App. 579, 234 S.E.2d 157, 158-59 (1977), and by the authoritative commentator in the field, see 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 60.32. Faulkner rests on a stated concern that allowing claims based on an employee's wages received from an employer not covered by the Act might jeopardize the solvency of the compensation fund. See Faulkner, 71 Ariz. at 78, 223 P.2d at 906. Professor Larson questions whether this rather fanciful possibility should weigh heavier in the scales than the underlying purpose of compensation law, which is to estimate accurately the claimant's earning capacity and provide compensation bearing a proper relation to it. 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 60.32, at 10-766 (emphasis added). We note, also, that Arizona's concurrent similar employment rule, which allows aggregation, has not produced untoward consequences. Notwithstanding any criticism of Faulkner, its holding (that wages received from an employer not covered by the Act must be excluded when making the average monthly wage determination) clearly does not require that wages from concurrent dissimilar employment for covered employers also must be excluded when making the average monthly wage determination. See American Uniform & Rental Serv. v. Trainer, 262 So.2d 193, 196 (Fla. 1972). Thus, the propriety of using Faulkner as a foundation for the concurrent dissimilar employment rule is questionable. The Sanchez court applied Faulkner to a totally different factual situation and did so by merely stating that Faulkner was consistent with a rule that wages from concurrent dissimilar employment should not be combined. Then, without discussion, Sanchez summarily adopted the concurrent dissimilar employment rule. Sanchez, 96 Ariz. at 23, 391 P.2d at 582. Cases from other jurisdictions were cited, id., many of which are distinguishable or have been repudiated in the years following Sanchez. [10] Sanchez contains no statutory analysis or discussion of the Act's purposes. See generally Sanchez, 96 Ariz. at 20-24, 391 P.2d at 580-83. Similarly lacking any analysis, Wesolowski merely cites Sanchez and sets forth the concurrent dissimilar employment rule. Wesolowski, 99 Ariz. at 6, 405 P.2d at 888. Thus, the cases themselves contain neither adequate analysis, persuasive reasoning, nor consideration of the purposes of the Act. The court of appeals, although properly following Sanchez and Wesolowski, has questioned whether the dissimilar employment rule is equitable or required by the language of the Act. See Wiley, mem. dec. at 4-5; Wheeler, 22 Ariz. App. at 490, 528 P.2d at 876. Nationwide, the growing trend is for earnings to be combined regardless of whether the employment was similar. See 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 60.31(a), at 10-729, 10-732 to 740 & n. 58.1 (citing cases). Professor Larson condemns the dissimilar employment rule in no uncertain terms: [It] is unnecessary from the point of view of statutory construction, unsound as a matter of accomplishing the purposes of the legislation, inhumane from the point of view of the claimant, and logically absurd as to the distinctions on which it is based. Id. § 60.31(c), at 10-746. For the reasons described above, we share these concerns about the rule. In light of our healthy respect for stare decisis,  State v. Lara, 171 Ariz. 282, 285, 830 P.2d 803, 806 (1992), we do not lightly overrule precedent and do so only for compelling reasons, see, e.g., State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 416, 844 P.2d 566, 583 (1992); Hedlund v. Sheldon, 173 Ariz. 143, 144, 840 P.2d 1008, 1009 (1992). Mere disagreement with those who preceded us, without more, is not an adequate reason to overrule precedent. See Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 417, 844 P.2d at 584. While we should and do pay appropriate homage to precedent, we also realize that we are not prisoners of the past. In this case, there are compelling reasons to overrule precedent: (1) the language of the Act does not compel the interpretation reached in previous cases; (2) the interpretation that we overrule did not advance the policies of the Act; (3) the precedent we overrule is not the result of clear analysis or persuasive reasoning; (4) by overruling precedent, we return, in general, to the view of Wells which is better supported and reasoned; and (5) the facts of this case demonstrate that the interpretation we overrule today was imprudent and unjust. The views of the leading commentator in the field and of our own court of appeals verify this conclusion, as do more recent cases from other states. Thus, although recognizing that stare decisis is a formidable constraint, compelling reasons overcome that constraint in this case. When addressing the same issue, the Florida Supreme Court overruled precedent and rejected the concurrent dissimilar employment rule: If the injury occurring on the part-time job has disabled the employee from working at his full-time job, his capacity as a wage earner is impaired beyond the limits of his part-time job and his compensation should be based on the combined wages. The purpose of the Act is to compensate for loss of wage earning capacity due to work-connected injury. It is the capacity of the whole man not the capacity of the part-time or full-time worker that is involved. American Uniform & Rental Serv., 262 So.2d at 194 (overruling in part J.J. Murphy & Son, Inc. v. Gibbs, 137 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1962)). We endorse this view. Thus, we join the substantial and growing minority of jurisdictions, see 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 60.31(a), at 10-729, in holding that concurrent wages from both similar and dissimilar employment should be combined in determining a claimant's average monthly wage, see, e.g., MCM Parking Co. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 510 A.2d 1041, 1041-44 (D.C. 1986); Catteyson v. Falls Mobile Home Center, Inc., 183 Mont. 284, 599 P.2d 341, 342-43 (1979); Produce v. Industrial Comm'n, 657 P.2d 1354, 1355-57 (Utah 1983). Accordingly, we expressly overrule the contrary holdings of Sanchez and Wesolowski. [11]