Martinez v. Shc
1 CA-CV 15-0599
Ariz. Ct. App.Jan 24, 2017Background
- Martinez, an SHC employee working as a transporter, was potentially exposed to TB while transporting a patient and reported the exposure.
- SHC directed Martinez to its occupational health dept.; he received a TB skin test and a chest x-ray at SHC’s facility and expense; the radiologist’s abnormal x-ray findings were not communicated to Martinez.
- Roughly two years later Martinez was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma; he sued SHC for common-law medical negligence claiming SHC’s non-disclosure deprived him of an earlier opportunity to diagnose and treat his cancer.
- SHC moved for summary judgment arguing the Arizona Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) preempts Martinez’s tort claim because the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for SHC; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the Act’s exclusivity provision barred Martinez’s claim and the dual-capacity doctrine did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act preempts Martinez’s medical-negligence claim | Martinez: his injury (lost opportunity to discover/treat cancer earlier due to failure to disclose x-ray results) is not a work-related industrial injury | SHC: the alleged injury arose out of and in the course of employment (exposure, testing, and x-ray were work-connected) | Held: preempted — exclusivity bars the tort claim |
| Whether the events constituted an "accident" under the Act | Martinez: injury was not a compensable industrial accident tied to a work risk | SHC: the preventive testing and nondisclosure were connected to an occupational hazard and therefore an accident/work-connected | Held: found an "accident" — unexpected, injury-causing, work-connected event |
| Whether a preexisting disease claim (exacerbation or lost opportunity) is excluded from the Act | Martinez: frames injury as lost opportunity to treat a non-work disease, not a work exacerbation | SHC: employer’s negligent failure to disclose combined with condition produced compensable harm under the Act | Held: exacerbation/producing cause doctrine applies — compensable and preempted |
| Whether the dual-capacity doctrine allows a tort suit against employer acting as healthcare provider | Martinez: SHC acted as his healthcare provider when directing/testing him, so exclusivity shouldn't bar suit | SHC: testing was ordered as part of employer’s occupational-health duties, not a separate persona | Held: dual-capacity inapplicable — SHC acted within employer role; exclusivity remains effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 194 Ariz. 448 (1999) (exclusivity of workers’ compensation reflects tradeoff of tort rights for no-fault benefits)
- Mardian Const. Co. v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 103 (1988) (Act bars common-law claims that possibly flow from work-related injury)
- Swichtenberg v. Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77 (1992) (superior court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over employer tort claims when injury arises in course of employment)
- Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Servs., Inc., 185 Ariz. 93 (1996) (dual-capacity doctrine discussed; employer conduct that combines with preexisting condition can produce compensable industrial injury)
- McCreary v. Industrial Commission, 172 Ariz. 137 (1992) (preexisting condition aggravated by work activity is compensable)
- PF Chang’s v. Industrial Commission, 216 Ariz. 344 (2008) ("arising out of" includes injuries incidental to discharge of employment duties)