Imrich v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Imrich v. Industrial Commission

474 P.2d 874, 13 Ariz. App. 155, 1970 Ariz. App. LEXIS 776

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedSeptember 28, 1970

Docket1 CA-IC 463

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 474 P.2d 874 (Imrich v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Imrich v. Industrial Commission, 474 P.2d 874, 13 Ariz. App. 155, 1970 Ariz. App. LEXIS 776 (Ark. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

HAIRE, Judge.

The petitioner lost one testicle as the result of an industrial injury. Although he suffered no loss of earning capacity because of this injury, he contends that the Industrial Commission should have entered an award granting him compensation under the permanent partial disability provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1044, subsec. C. 1

Inasmuch as there was no evidence of actual loss of earning capacity, the Commission award denying compensation must be affirmed. See Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 66 Ariz. 247, 186 P.2d 951 (1947). Petitioner contends that the scheduled injury provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1044, subsec. B constitute arbitrary classifications unreasonably discriminating against a workman not having such a scheduled injury. By the scheduled injury provisions of subsection B, the legislature has created a conclusive presumption that every loss enumerated therein will cause some permanent loss of earning capacity and has fixed the amount of compensation to be paid therefor. Ujevich v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, 42 Ariz. 276, 25 P.2d 273 (1933). We do not find such classifications to be arbitrary or unreasonable, or entirely unrelated to possible loss of earning capacity, nor are we concerned with the wisdom of the legislative policy which resulted in establishing such classifications. Williams v. Industrial Commission, 68 Ariz. 147, 202 P.2d 898 (1949). In any event, even if the scheduled injury classifications of subsection B were subject to a constitutional infirmity, petitioner would not be benefited. He has not demonstrated a loss of earning capacity so as to be entitled to benefits under subsection C, and this Court would have no power to enact by judicial decree another, more generous, formula of compensation benefits encompassing petitioner’s injury.

The award is affirmed.

EUBANK, P. J., and JACOBSON, J., concur.

1

. This ease was decided under the statutory law as it existed prior to January 1,1969.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HAIRE, Judge.

The petitioner lost one testicle as the result of an industrial injury. Although he suffered no loss of earning capacity because of this injury, he contends that the Industrial Commission should have entered an award granting him compensation under the permanent partial disability provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1044, subsec. C. 1

Inasmuch as there was no evidence of actual loss of earning capacity, the Commission award denying compensation must be affirmed. See Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 66 Ariz. 247, 186 P.2d 951 (1947). Petitioner contends that the scheduled injury provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1044, subsec. B constitute arbitrary classifications unreasonably discriminating against a workman not having such a scheduled injury. By the scheduled injury provisions of subsection B, the legislature has created a conclusive presumption that every loss enumerated therein will cause some permanent loss of earning capacity and has fixed the amount of compensation to be paid therefor. Ujevich v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, 42 Ariz. 276, 25 P.2d 273 (1933). We do not find such classifications to be arbitrary or unreasonable, or entirely unrelated to possible loss of earning capacity, nor are we concerned with the wisdom of the legislative policy which resulted in establishing such classifications. Williams v. Industrial Commission, 68 Ariz. 147, 202 P.2d 898 (1949). In any event, even if the scheduled injury classifications of subsection B were subject to a constitutional infirmity, petitioner would not be benefited. He has not demonstrated a loss of earning capacity so as to be entitled to benefits under subsection C, and this Court would have no power to enact by judicial decree another, more generous, formula of compensation benefits encompassing petitioner’s injury.

The award is affirmed.

EUBANK, P. J., and JACOBSON, J., concur.

1

. This ease was decided under the statutory law as it existed prior to January 1,1969.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 P.2d 874, 13 Ariz. App. 155, 1970 Ariz. App. LEXIS 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imrich-v-industrial-commission-arizctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack