Court Opinion

ID: 9541627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:27:15.424669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:13.857504
License: Public Domain

ZLAKET, Chief Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
¶ 18 I agree with the majority that forfeiture is inappropriate in this case. I would prefer, however, simply to overrule Hornback v. Industrial Commission, 106 Ariz. 216, 474 P.2d 807 (1970). It is too harsh, frequently acts as a trap for the unwary, and finds no support in the statutes.1
¶ 19 Moreover, I would not put the burden on Bohn to prove the reasonableness of his third party settlement. When the Special Fund elected to deny this claim, it gave up any right that it might have had to a “significantly” reduced risk of “prejudice.” Supra ¶ 15. It voluntarily assumed the role of a non-participant, and ought not be heard to complain if it were now required to demonstrate that the settlement was unreasonable.
¶20 Fixing the burden of proof on the claimant creates an anomalous situation. Without any real jeopardy, providers of benefits are given an incentive to withhold coverage and challenge settlements within the framework of what is intended to be a benevolent system facilitating easy and expeditious compensation for injured workers. See Ait-ken v. Industrial Comm’n, 183 Ariz. 387, 392, 904 P.2d 456, 461 (1995) (“[W]e have consistently applied workers’ compensation laws liberally, remedially, and in a manner ensuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits.”). The contradiction defies explanation.
¶ 21 In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

. I disagree with the majority’s assertion that no challenge to Homback has been raised here. See supra n. 1. That case was the focus of much discussion during oral argument. In response to questioning, claimant’s attorney clearly stated that Homback should be overruled, though he conceded that his client could still be afforded relief if the court elected not to go so far. Hom-back was frequently cited in the briefs and the opinion below, obviously because it lies at the very heart of this matter. Without the forfeiture holding in that case, there would be nothing to decide here. Thus, I believe the continuing validity of the Homback rule has been squarely presented by the instant facts, and I am astonished by the suggestion that we cannot revisit the wisdom of our own earlier decision because the parties have not expressly asked us to do so in their written pleadings.