460 P.3d 1253
Ariz. Ct. App.2020Background
- John R. France, a Gila County deputy sheriff, was dispatched to a suicide/violent-threat call; a man burst through a doorway, pointed a shotgun at France at close range, and rushed him. France and his partner shot and killed the assailant.
- France was diagnosed with PTSD from the incident and filed a workers’ compensation claim.
- Gila County Sheriff’s Office and its insurer conceded France has work-related PTSD but denied compensability under A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B) because the stress was not “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary.”
- The ALJ denied benefits, finding the stress was not outside the normal duties of a deputy (citing deputies’ training and the routine possibility of using deadly force).
- France petitioned for special action review; the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and set aside the ICA decision, holding the ALJ erred in focusing on the routine nature of the event rather than whether the stress was sufficiently significant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stress France experienced qualifies as “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary” under A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B) | France: the close-range threat to his life, need to avoid shooting partner, and killing the assailant produced stress beyond ordinary job stress and therefore is compensable | GCSO: facing such violent confrontations and use-of-force decisions are foreseeable, part of deputies’ training and duties, so the stress is not "unexpected, unusual or extraordinary" | Court: statute means the employment-related stress must be significant and noteworthy beyond ordinary work-life wear and tear; the ALJ improperly focused on the event’s routine character and training; set aside the award. |
| Whether the ALJ’s definitions/analysis of "unexpected, unusual or extraordinary" were legally correct | France: statutory terms are distinct and must be read to capture stress that is sufficiently notable, not conflated with routine job exposure | GCSO: routine exposure to violence defeats claim; accepting France’s claim would convert workers’ comp into general health insurance | Court: ALJ conflated the statutory terms and erred; the words have distinct meanings and the focus should be on the nature/degree of stress experienced versus routine job conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engler v. Gulf Interstate Eng’g, 230 Ariz. 55 (2012) (Act construed liberally to effect remedial purpose)
- Sloss v. Indus. Comm’n, 121 Ariz. 10 (1978) (mental injury from ordinary job incidents not compensable)
- Barnes v. Indus. Comm’n, 156 Ariz. 179 (App. 1988) (use of a hypothetical reasonable co-worker as a comparative yardstick for work-related stress)
- DeSchaaf v. Indus. Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 318 (App. 1984) (causal connection for mental injury generally requires expert testimony)
- Twin City Fire Ins. v. Leija, 244 Ariz. 493 (2018) (overview of workers’ compensation administrative system)