481 P.3d 1162
Ariz.2021Background
- June 18, 2017: Gila County deputy John France responded to a welfare check; a subject rushed out with a shotgun and advanced on him, and deputies shot and killed the subject.
- France developed PTSD the next day, never returned to work, retired, and filed a workers’ compensation claim.
- Medical experts agreed the Shooting Incident caused France’s PTSD; the sole dispute was whether the stress was “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary” under A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B).
- An ALJ and the Industrial Commission denied benefits, reasoning that using deadly force was part of a deputy’s ordinary duties.
- The court of appeals set aside the Commission’s denial; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review, clarified the standard, and set aside the ICA’s decision denying benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary” under § 23-1043.01(B) | France: standard should focus on whether the specific event was objectively unexpected/unusual/extraordinary | Gila County: analysis should compare stress to that of fellow employees; focus on job duties and training | Court: apply an objective reasonable-person standard — assess the event from standpoint of a reasonable employee with similar duties/training (not claimant’s subjective reaction) |
| Application to deputy-involved shooting | France: the Shooting Incident was an objectively rare, extraordinary event that caused compensable stress | Gila County: officers are trained for violent encounters; such possibilities are within job scope, so stress is ordinary | Court: ALJ erred by focusing solely on job duties; the Shooting Incident was objectively rare and not part of ordinary routine, so the denial was set aside (remand for proceedings consistent with correct standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Findley v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 135 Ariz. 273 (addresses compensability elements under § 23-1043.01(B))
- Archer v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 127 Ariz. 199 (distinguishes gradual stress claims from sudden-event claims; applies objective test)
- Barnes v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 156 Ariz. 179 (endorses reasonable-person objective standard for work-related stress)
- Pima Cmty. Coll. v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 137 Ariz. 137 (similar application of objective standard)
- Brock v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 15 Ariz. App. 95 (single unexpected work event held compensable)
- Muse v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 27 Ariz. App. 312 (gradual job stress held noncompensable)
- Verdugo v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 114 Ariz. 477 (mental injury from ordinary work demands not compensable)
- Lapare v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 154 Ariz. 318 (same distinction between ordinary regimen stress and compensable events)
- Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 119 Ariz. 51 (example of compensable injury from significantly increased workload)