302 P.3d 635
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- This is a special action reviewing an ICA award granting apportionment reimbursement to Employer/Carrier against Special Fund.
- Injured worker Karen Lane has a preexisting congenital hand condition, syndactyly.
- ALJ awarded apportionment based on treating syndactyly as an amputation under § 23-1065(C)(3)(e).
- The ALJ’s determination led to an administrative decision affirming apportionment; Special Fund appealed.
- Court holds syndactyly is not an amputation under the statute and sets aside the apportionment award.
- Legal analysis emphasizes statutory text, AMA Guides interpretation, and legislative history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does syndactyly qualify as an amputation under § 23-1065(C)(3)(e)? | Lane argues syndactyly is preexisting but not an amputation. | Employer/Carrier contend syndactyly fits amputation under the statute. | No; syndactyly is not an amputation under § 23-1065(C)(3)(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- DeVries v. State, 221 Ariz. 201 (App. 2009) (statutory interpretation governs ordinary meaning of terms)
- Salt River Project v. Indus. Comm’n, 172 Ariz. 477 (App. 1992) (catch-all provision omitted; apportionment restricted to listed impairments)
- Special Fund Div. v. Indus. Comm’n (Sordia), 224 Ariz. 29 (App. 2010) (de novo review of statutory interpretation for apportionment eligibility)
- Prince & Princess Enters., LLC v. State ex rel. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 221 Ariz. 5 (App. 2008) (statutory interpretation constrained by governing principles)