Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk
236 Ariz. 478
| Ariz. | 2015Background
- Linda Bell injured at work in Feb 2010; continued working but intermittently missed time for treatment over 17 months, using sick/vacation leave; had surgery July 2011 and was off work for months.
- Bell sought temporary partial disability (TPD) compensation to reimburse paid leave used during the intermittent absence period.
- An ALJ denied TPD, finding no medical evidence she was taken off work for any single period over one week and concluding § 23-1062(B) requires an initial period of temporary total disability (TTD) of more than seven days.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the § 23-1062(B) waiting period must be satisfied by consecutive working days of TTD.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether § 23-1062(B)’s seven-day waiting period applies to TPD, whether prior TTD is required, and whether the seven days must be consecutive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bell) | Defendant's Argument (Maricopa/Pinnacle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 23-1062(B)’s waiting period apply to TPD claims? | Waiting period applies to disability generally but not a bar to TPD recovery. | Waiting period applies but (per court of appeals) must be satisfied by TTD. | The waiting period applies to all disability types, including TPD. |
| Must a claimant show an initial period of TTD before recovering TPD? | No; TPD alone can satisfy waiting period and support compensation. | Argued (and lower courts held) waiting period requires prior TTD. | No prior TTD required; any type of disability (TPD or TTD) can satisfy waiting period. |
| Do the seven days for the waiting period need to be consecutive? | Bell argued nonconsecutive days can be aggregated. | Argued that waiting period requires a one‑week period (consecutive days). | The seven days must be seven consecutive calendar days of disability. |
| Are the seven days measured by calendar days or working days, and must there be lost work time? | (Bell) Measurement by calendar days; entitlement tied to demonstrated disability, not necessarily missed work. | (Employer) Lower court treated requirement as consecutive working days and required missed time. | The seven days are consecutive calendar days; entitlement depends on loss of earning capacity (disability), not necessarily missed work. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alsbrooks v. Indus. Comm’n, 118 Ariz. 480, 578 P.2d 159 (1978) (TPD statute governs method of calculating partial‑disability compensation)
- Tartaglia v. Indus. Comm’n, 177 Ariz. 199, 866 P.2d 867 (1994) (terms "incapacity" and "disability" refer to loss of earning capacity; statute construed using ordinary meanings)
- Shaw v. Indus. Comm’n, 109 Ariz. 401, 510 P.2d 47 (1973) (awards may span alternating periods of TPD and TTD)
- Roberson v. Indus. Comm’n, 98 Ariz. 336, 404 P.2d 419 (1965) (TPD can support a valid claim even absent initial TTD if loss of earning capacity existed)
- County of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm’n, 145 Ariz. 14, 699 P.2d 389 (App. 1985) (illustrative facts showing satisfaction of the seven‑day threshold across calendar days)
- Post v. Indus. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 4, 770 P.2d 308 (1989) (ALJ must make findings on all material issues; appellate courts will set aside awards lacking factual basis)