Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
226 Ariz. 395
| Ariz. | 2011Background
- Gutierrez injured his back in 2007 while working for Masterson & Clark Framing; claim accepted and treatment provided.
- Treating physician released Gutierrez with physical restrictions; carrier later closed claim as not permanently impaired.
- Gutierrez challenged the no impairment determination at an ICA hearing.
- Two physicians testified: one using the Fifth Edition (per Gutierrez) rated 5% impairment; the other using the Sixth Edition concluded no ratable impairment.
- ALJ upheld the carrier; Court of Appeals affirmed; issue presented was how to interpret A.A.C. R20-5-113(B)’s “most recent edition.”
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether “most recent edition” means the edition current at promulgation or the latest edition prior to rating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What edition does 'most recent edition' refer to? | Gutierrez argues it refers to the latest edition currently (Sixth). | ICA argues it refers to the most recently published edition before rating (Sixth, here). | The rule refers to the edition most recently published before rating. |
| Does referencing later editions constitute an improper delegation of legislative authority? | Gutierrez contends it delegates to the AMA the authority to set rating standards. | ICA contends the reference is discretionary guidance, not a mandatory delegation. | Not an improper delegation; the AMA Guides use is discretionary. |
Key Cases Cited
- W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 150 Ariz. 66 (1986) (AMA Guides are guidelines; not binding if they do not reflect claimant's loss)
- Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 158 Ariz. 131 (1988) (AMA Guides may be overridden by other evidence of impairment)
- Cavco Indus. v. Indus. Comm'n, 129 Ariz. 429 (1981) (AMA Guides apply only where they cover the impairment and reflect claimant's loss)
- Gomez v. Indus. Comm'n, 148 Ariz. 565 (1986) (AMA Guides not to be blindly applied; must reflect actual condition)
- Smith v. Indus. Comm'n, 113 Ariz. 304 (1976) (Subjective pain not within AMA Guides but still compensable)
- State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247 (2001) (absurd result avoidance in statutory interpretation)
- City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 92 Ariz. 91 (1962) (interpretation avoids unnecessary rigidity when applying rules)