Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission
227 Ariz. 453
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Truelock was injured in 2004 examining a truck while working as a mechanic for Bridgestone.
- He initially received extensive dental treatment; the claim closed with no permanent impairment.
- The carrier reopened the claim in 2008; Truelock underwent significant dental work including implants.
- In December 2009 the claim was closed again with no permanent impairment.
- The ALJ later awarded a scheduled permanent disability under § 23-1044(B)(22) for loss of teeth; this was amended on review.
- Petitioners appeal, contending disfigurement is required for benefits under § 23-1044(B)(22); the ICA has historically allowed benefits for loss of teeth without disfigurement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of teeth qualifies for § 23-1044(B)(22) without disfigurement. | Truelock argues no disfigurement required for the award. | Bridgestone/Old Republic contend disfigurement is a prerequisite. | Yes; loss of teeth can support § 23-1044(B)(22) without disfigurement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272 (1996) (language as best index of statute meaning when unambiguous)
- Hayes v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264 (1994) (statutory interpretation with liberal remedial construction)
- State v. Witwer, 175 Ariz. 305 (App. 1993) (includes as enlargement the term 'includes' in a statute)
- Moreno v. Indus. Comm'n, 122 Ariz. 298 (App. 1979) (loss of teeth not encompassed by other language; supports disjunction from disfigurement)