 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carr v. Industrial Commission of Arizona12/21/1999
This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission award that denied travel reimbursement to the claimant and established an average monthly wage. We set the award aside because we conclude that the injured worker, who was required to travel outside his community to obtain treatment, is entitled to be paid travel expenses.
In 1997 the claimant was hired by Indiana Western Express as an over-the-road truck driver out of its Kingman truck terminal. He lived about sixteen miles outside of Seligman, Arizona, and to reach Kingman he had to drive for thirty-five to forty-five minutes on dirt roads to the freeway and then over an hour on the freeway. He stated that once he picked up a tractor-trailer rig, he was usually on the road for five to seven days before returning to Kingman.
In January 1998 the claimant's knee was injured when a load fell on him. He was hospitalized for a few days. The respondent carrier, Great West Casualty, arranged a follow-up visit for him with an osteopath in Kingman. The claimant was dissatisfied with his treatment, and on advice from the Industrial Commission, he contacted his family physician in Flagstaff for a referral to an orthopedic specialist. The specialist prescribed physical therapy.
Flagstaff, which is a 230-mile round trip from Seligman, was the closest place the claimant could obtain physical therapy. He had therapy sessions twice a week and because his injury prevented the claimant from driving, his wife had to take an unpaid day off from work each time she transported him to and from his appointments.
The claimant continued to receive the prescribed physical therapy from late February until mid May, 1998. He testified that at that time, he had to discontinue his therapy sessions because he could no longer afford the travel. He testified that he had sold his TV, VCR, computer, and truck and eventually also lost his water truck and a piece of property because he remained unable to work and had no income.
In May 1998 Great West issued a notice of claim status suspending the claimant's medical benefits because he had "refused to submit to a . . . medical examination," that is, attend physical therapy. The claimant timely requested a hearing and subsequently filed a second request for hearing arising out of the notice of average monthly wage that excluded payments he received from his employer for expenses he incurred while on the road.
The ALJ entered an award denying the claimant's request for travel reimbursement but reinstating his disability benefits and affirming the average monthly wage. The award was summarily affirmed on administrative review, and the claimant brought this special action.
THE CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO TRAVEL EXPENSES
Any employee who sustains a compensable industrial injury "shall be entitled to receive . . . such medical . . . services . . . as are provided by this chapter [Arizona Workers' Compensation Act]." Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 23-1021(A). These services include "medical . . . benefits or other treatment . . . reasonably required at the time of injury, and during the period of disability." A.R.S. § 23-1062(A). An injured worker must submit to reasonable medical treatment necessary to promote his recovery or he may lose his workers' compensation benefits. See A.R.S. §§ 23-1026(E), 23-1027.
In this case, the ALJ found that the claimant provided credible testimony that he was unable to obtain the prescribed physical therapy for his industrial injury because he could not afford to make the round trip to Flagstaff. The ALJ nonetheless found that based on this court's opinion in Martinez
Page 1 2 3 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|