Court Opinion

ID: 9532060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:17:32.77022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:39.704872
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Judge
(dissenting).
I feel compelled to dissent for the reason that I believe that Jaynes v. Industrial Commission, 7 Ariz.App. 78, 436 P.2d 172, review denied by the Arizona Supreme Court on 5 March 1968, correctly states the law rather than Arnott v. Industrial Commission, 103 Ariz. 182, 438 P.2d 419, decided by our Supreme Court on 7 March 1968. It was with extreme reluctance that I concurred in our recent opinion in Heredia, cited in the majority opinion.
In my opinion unless it is crystal clear that an injury is a scheduled injury it should be held to be a nonscheduled injury. In my opinion any permanent physical impairment of the body beyond the limits of the scheduled portion of the body converts the injury to an unscheduled injury. Plere there is a permanent impairment of the shoulder even though there is testimony to the effect that the residual disability resulting from the shoulder impairment manifests itself in the arm.
I recognize that the majority opinion is based upon Arnott. I recognize that Supreme Court opinions are controlling. It is my opinion that the Arnott decision should be reconsidered and declared to not be the rule. It is my opinion that the facts in the matter under consideration are distinguishable from Arnott to the point that Arnott should not apply.