Manone v. mj/cincinnati
1 CA-IC 16-0051
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Petitioner Mike Manone, a self-employed home builder, injured his left shoulder and arm on April 1, 2014; he underwent surgeries, reached medical stability, and was found to have a permanent partial impairment.
- The Industrial Commission initially awarded no loss of earning capacity (LEC); Petitioner requested a hearing and presented testimony along with two labor-market experts (Prestwood and Clapp).
- Petitioner moved from Phoenix to Yarnell in 2013 and at the time of the injury both lived and worked in Yarnell; since 2013 most of his work has been in Yarnell with one post-move job in Glendale.
- Expert Prestwood excluded the Phoenix metro area (citing travel time/distance); expert Clapp included Phoenix and identified several job openings in Phoenix/Tempe/Chandler and Prescott.
- The ALJ credited Clapp, used greater Phoenix as part of the geographical labor market, and awarded LEC; the Commission affirmed on review.
- Petitioner sought special-action review in the Court of Appeals arguing the ALJ legally erred by including Phoenix in his relevant geographical labor market.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the greater Phoenix area was part of Petitioner’s geographical labor market for LEC | Manone: He lived and worked in Yarnell at time of injury; post-move work was almost exclusively local, so Phoenix is not within his market | Carrier/Employer: Expert Clapp showed builders often travel to projects and Manone had access to a Glendale apartment, so Phoenix is reasonably within his market | Court: Reversed — evidence did not support including Phoenix; Yarnell (and nearby Prescott) but not Phoenix, is within his labor market |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly Services v. Industrial Commission, 210 Ariz. 16, 106 P.3d 1031 (App. 2005) (sets a totality-of-the-circumstances test for whether a labor market is within a claimant’s "area of residence")
- Paramo v. Industrial Commission, 186 Ariz. 75, 918 P.2d 1093 (App. 1996) (included multiple, regularly worked locations in a migrant worker’s labor market)
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 90 Ariz. 248, 367 P.2d 270 (1961) (claimant in rural Arizona was not required to look for work in distant Phoenix)
- Ihle v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz. App. 463, 484 P.2d 232 (1971) (recognizes voluntary expansion of a claimant’s labor market upon relocation)
- Roach v. Industrial Commission, 137 Ariz. 510, 672 P.2d 175 (1983) (labor market can include both former and new residences after a claimant’s move)
- Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission, 137 Ariz. 578, 672 P.2d 922 (1983) (LEC should be assessed with reference to claimant’s area of residence)