Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; July 16, 1987; Arizona; State Appellate Court
In Curtis Perry v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed an Industrial Commission award that denied the reopening of Perry's 1977 workers' compensation claim based on the principle of preclusion. Perry, a former professional basketball player for the Phoenix Suns, developed severe low back pain in January 1977, which led to a diagnosis of lumbosacral strain with possible nerve root irritation. Medical evaluations revealed significant spinal issues, including first degree spondylolisthesis and disc degeneration. Various orthopedic specialists assessed Perry's condition, with differing opinions on the causation of his spondylolisthesis—some suggesting a possible stress fracture related to his athletic activities, while others indicated it might be a preexisting condition.
Perry's symptoms initially improved, allowing him to attempt a return to basketball; however, he was disabled again by January 1978 and ultimately failed a team physical later that year. His claim was closed based on a report from Dr. Tabor, who indicated that Perry was asymptomatic and did not have a permanent impairment. Perry protested this closure, leading to a hearing where only one medical witness, Dr. Steingard, testified. He acknowledged uncertainty regarding the nature of Perry’s spondylolisthesis, but leaned toward the idea that it was a preexisting condition rather than a new injury. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision, agreeing that the principle of preclusion applied in this case.
The claimant's injury was assessed as a temporary soft tissue sprain by Dr. Tabor, who identified developmental abnormalities as the underlying structural defects. He determined that the industrial injury only temporarily aggravated the condition and rated a 5% permanent impairment unrelated to the injury itself. The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the structural defects were developmental and awarded termination of the claim without permanent impairment, which became final as the claimant did not seek review. In February 1985, the claimant returned to Dr. Nichols due to increased pain, and x-rays indicated significant degeneration of the L3-L4 disc space. Dr. Nichols attributed this degeneration to the industrial injury, linking it to a pre-existing spondylolisthesis caused by a stress fracture. Dr. Brainard supported Dr. Nichols' views but acknowledged the stress fracture was diagnosed in 1977. Dr. Tabor maintained that the degeneration was a normal consequence of the non-industrial spondylolisthesis. The ALJ denied the petition to reopen the claim, asserting that the worsening condition was due to the underlying spondylolisthesis, which had been previously litigated. This decision was upheld in administrative review. The claimant acknowledged conflicting medical evidence but contended that the ALJ failed to address the merits of this conflict in the review process.
Preclusion of a workers' compensation claim is not applicable if the claimant presents new, additional, or previously undiscovered conditions related to an industrial injury, as allowed by A.R.S. 23-1061(H). This statute balances the principles of finality, which prevent the relitigation of issues that were known when the claim was closed, with the remedial goal of allowing adjustments to changing circumstances. Conditions that were "existing and known" at the claim's closure are subject to preclusion, while reopening is permissible for new or undiscovered conditions, requiring medical evidence to show that an industrially related condition developed or worsened post-closure.
Preclusion applies even if new evidence contradicts prior findings or if a physician changes their opinion, but this does not apply to previously undiscovered conditions, which may warrant reopening based on new evidence. The precedent for this legal framework includes the case Garrote v. Industrial Commission, where a worker claimed a previously undiscovered disability after a back injury, leading to a reopening of his case. Similar outcomes were observed in Crocker v. Industrial Commission, where a delayed diagnosis of an underlying condition after persistent symptoms also justified reopening. The court established that the existence of pain does not negate the possibility of a previously undiscovered condition, allowing for the reconsideration of claims when new medical evidence emerges.
The claimant underwent surgery after being diagnosed with a herniated disc and subsequently filed a second petition to reopen a prior award that denied reopening. The court set aside this award, finding no logical distinction between this case and previous cases, Garrote and Crocker, where the true causes of workers' disabilities were not identified at the time of earlier awards. In each case, later medical evaluations clarified the connection between the disabilities and the industrial accidents.
A related case involved a police officer who, after sustaining a gunshot wound and undergoing surgery, developed additional symptoms including blackouts and psychiatric issues. Initially, the treating neurosurgeon did not link these symptoms to the industrial injury but later acknowledged a connection after additional diagnostic studies. The court set aside the denial of the officer's petition to reopen, stating that the evolution of medical opinions over time warranted reconsideration.
The Supreme Court's decision in Salt River Project v. Industrial Commission established that undiscovered conditions that were not clearly linked to a prior finding of no permanent disability could be grounds for reopening a claim. This marked a significant shift in the law, allowing for the reopening of cases if the true cause of disability was only later identified, irrespective of whether the condition had previously been diagnosed but not definitively linked to the industrial injury.
The analysis noted that prior interpretations required a manifest condition for reopening, whereas now, the discovery of a true cause for existing conditions could justify a reopening. However, recent cases have not fully acknowledged or adapted to this reinterpretation.
The excerpt critiques the approach of recent cases that label conditions as "previously undiscovered" without establishing new principles, potentially undermining finality in legal determinations. The current petition to reopen a case is examined in light of this issue, specifically regarding the diagnosis of a stress fracture related to spondylolisthesis. It argues that finality limits the trier-of-fact's ability to reconsider evidence already available at the time the original claim was closed in 1978. Unlike previous cases, such as Garrote and Crocker, evidence of the stress fracture was already documented, and the new evidence regarding additional degeneration lacks clarity, merely reiterating existing conflicts. The conclusion affirms that the administrative law judge appropriately applied claim preclusion, as the claimant could have contested the causation of the spondylolisthesis at the time of closure. Moreover, determinations regarding the claimant’s psychological condition and the relationship of surgery to the industrial injury were also precluded. The judgment is affirmed, with concurrence from Justices Corcoran and Contreras. The notes clarify that claim preclusion applies broadly, while issue preclusion is limited to matters that were previously litigated and essential to the determination.
