Court Opinion

ID: 9557966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:07.002358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:59.231456
License: Public Domain

EUBANK, Presiding Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur with that part of the majority opinion which holds that the evidence supports the hearing officer’s reopening award, but I disagree with that part of the opinion which holds that the state legislature intended to authorize apportionment between carriers by the enactment of A.R.S. § 23-1044(E) and A.R.S. § 23-1065(A)(5).
A reading of the cases cited by the majority shows the steady evolution of the concept of carrier apportionment by the Court of Appeals, but the question has never been specifically addressed by our Supreme Court. The conclusion that such apportionment exists is, in my opinion, pure legislation which the state legislature is much more able to undertake than is this Court. The implications of this holding on the rate structures of carriers are completely unknown to us, and therefore this public policy problem should be left up to the legislature.