From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SELL v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department B
Jan 23, 1973
502 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-IC 706.

November 16, 1972. Rehearing Denied December 19, 1972. Review Denied January 23, 1973.

Workmen's compensation case. The Industrial Commission denied petition to reopen Claim No. 9/9-59-64, and claimant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Eubank, J., held that medical report which contained no evidence of new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition was insufficient to entitle claimant to reopening of claim.

Affirmed.

Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for petitioner.

William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund, Phoenix, G.H. Ladendorff, Warren R. Brown, Phoenix, for respondent employer.


This matter is before this Court by virtue of our writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of the award and findings of The Industrial Commission of August 4, 1971, denying petitioner's petition to reopen his claim filed on October 31, 1969.

The facts of this case are set out in our prior decision Sell v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz. App. 454, 471 P.2d 756 (1970) and they will not be repeated here. In the prior decision we affirmed the award for temporary disability.

The only question for review is whether the petitioner established a "new, additional, or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition" as required by A.R.S § 23-1061, subsec. H.

At the oral argument on October 2, petitioner's counsel admitted that the only new medical evidence since the prior decision, consisted of the medical report of Maier I. Tuchler, M.D. received by the Commission on January 17, 1971. Respondent contends that it contains no evidence whatsoever of a new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition, and our review of the report fully confirms respondent's view.

Since the record does not comport to the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1061, subsec. H, the award of the Commission must be affirmed.

HAIRE, C.J., Division 1, and JACOBSON, J., concur.


Summaries of

SELL v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department B
Jan 23, 1973
502 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

SELL v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Case Details

Full title:Marvin E. SELL, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona…

Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department B

Date published: Jan 23, 1973

Citations

502 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)
502 P.2d 1086

Citing Cases

Blickenstaff v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona

In our opinion the statutory requirement that a physician's report be attached to the Petition to Reopen is…