Bell v. Industrial Commission
234 Ariz. 113
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Linda Bell was injured at work on Feb. 24, 2010 and continued to work; doctor initially diagnosed sprains/strains and did not place her on no-work status.
- From Feb. 25, 2010 to July 7, 2011 Bell missed intermittent work for medical treatment and used sick/vacation leave; she testified total time missed exceeded seven days but could not recall missing a full continuous work week.
- On July 8, 2011 Bell underwent shoulder surgery and was placed on no-work status thereafter.
- Bell sought temporary partial disability benefits for Feb. 25, 2010–July 7, 2011 as reimbursement for used leave; the ALJ denied benefits for failure to satisfy the § 23-1062(B) waiting period.
- The ALJ and the ICA on review found no medical evidence or work-status order showing temporary total disability during a continuous week in the claimed period; Bell appealed to the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 23-1062(B) waiting period requires a period of temporary total disability (TTD) rather than partial disability | Bell: Waiting period can be satisfied by missed time (temporary partial disability); statute should not be read to require TTD | ALJ/ICA: Statute references "temporary total disability" and the waiting-period language follows that term; therefore it requires TTD | Court held: Waiting period must be satisfied by a work week of temporary total disability, not by partial disability |
| Whether the waiting period may be satisfied by nonconsecutive days (accumulated time off) | Bell: Total time missed over many appointments exceeding one week should satisfy waiting period; statute does not say "consecutive" | ALJ/ICA: Text refers to "the first seven days after the injury" and "period of seven days," indicating a single continuous segment | Court held: Waiting period must be satisfied by disability on consecutive working days (a continuous work week); accumulating days over weeks/months is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Kwietkauski v. Indus. Comm’n, 231 Ariz. 168, 291 P.3d 365 (App.2012) (deferential factual review, independent legal review of ICA decisions)
- Special Fund Div. v. Indus. Comm’n, 224 Ariz. 29, 226 P.3d 398 (App.2010) (interpretation guided by plain language of statute)
- Special Fund Div./No Ins. Section v. Indus. Comm’n, 226 Ariz. 498, 250 P.3d 564 (App.2011) (standards for review of ICA legal conclusions)
- Advanced Prop. Tax Liens, Inc. v. Sherman, 227 Ariz. 528, 260 P.3d 1093 (App.2011) (harmonize statutory provisions; text controls)
- Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., 207 Ariz. 547, 88 P.3d 1159 (App.2004) (statutory construction principles)
- Tartaglia v. Indus. Comm’n, 177 Ariz. 199, 866 P.2d 867 (1994) ("seven day" waiting period treated as calendar days; for a five-day worker, demonstrates one work week)
- Maricopa Cnty. v. Indus. Comm’n, 145 Ariz. 14, 699 P.2d 389 (App.1985) (awarded compensation for intermittent medical-appointment absences; did not address seven-day threshold issue)
- City of Phoenix v. Harnish, 214 Ariz. 158, 150 P.3d 245 (App.2006) (statutory titles can be considered but text is controlling)