Opinion ID: 867305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonably Required Care

Text: ¶20 Even if services fall within a compensable category, § 23-1062(A) does not require compensation for them unless they are “reasonably required.” The ALJ did not decide whether the care provided by Mrs. Carbajal was reasonably required because he found that her services were “not of the type which necessitates a trained attendant.” He opined that the fact that “a paid attendant would otherwise be required in Mrs. Carbajal’s absence” did not bring her services within the scope of § 231062(A) or require the employer to pay for her services. ¶21 The Carrier contends that Mrs. Carbajal’s services were not required because Mr. Carbajal could have performed many of the tasks himself. It maintains that she provided these - 12 - services only because he demanded that she do so. Whether the services were reasonably required is a question of fact that we leave for the ALJ to address in the first instance. Regnier v. Indus. Comm’n, 146 Ariz. 535, 538, 707 P.2d 333, 336 (App. 1985) (citing Lowman v. Indus. Comm’n, 54 Ariz. 413, 419, 96 P.2d 405, 407 (1939)).