 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kessen v. Industrial Commission of Arizona8/26/1999
Amended by Order filed 9/9/99
AFFIRMED
The Kessens, Claimant Lynn Stewart's uninsured employer, seek special action review of the Industrial Commission of Arizona's ("ICA") affirmance of the lump-sum commutation of Claimant's workers' compensation award. The Kessens assert that, as Claimant's employer, their consent was required before the ICA could commute Claimant's award of unscheduled permanent partial disability benefits to a lump sum. We hold that it was not. On cross-petition, Claimant challenges the ICA's reduction of the lump-sum award by subtracting the monthly disability payments made to him after he submitted his lump-sum request. We hold that Claimant failed to preserve this issue for review. Accordingly, we affirm the ICA's award approving the lump-sum commutation.
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 1993, Claimant injured his back while working for the Kessens' rock-crushing business in Globe, Arizona. Because the Kessens did not have workers' compensation insurance for the period in which Claimant's injury occurred, the claim was handled by the ICA's No Insurance Section/Special Fund Division ("Special Fund"). The claim was eventually closed with a five percent unscheduled permanent impairment, entitling Claimant to $404.29 per month in unscheduled disability payments.
On October 3, 1997, Claimant requested a "lump-sum commutation" of his unscheduled award -- that is, he requested a lump-sum payment in lieu of further monthly payments. The ICA granted the request and, because the $79,000 present value of Claimant's future disability payments exceeded the statutory cap, awarded Claimant the statutory maximum of $50,000, less any payments received after the request was made. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. ("A.R.S.") § 23-1067(B) (1995). The Kessens timely protested. After considering the parties' legal memoranda, the ICA affirmed the lump-sum commutation. The Kessens then brought this special action. Claimant cross-petitioned, claiming that the ICA was erroneously deducting his monthly payments from his $50,000 award.
DISCUSSION
A. Uninsured Employer's Consent
The Kessens argue that the ICA erred by failing to obtain their consent to the Claimant's request for a lump-sum commutation. By statute, the consent of the "carrier liable to pay the claim" must be obtained before a lump-sum commutation may be awarded:
The may allow commutation of compensation pursuant to § 23-1044, subsection C, and 23-1045, subsections B, C, and D, to a lump sum of not to exceed . . . fifty thousand dollars for commutation requests made from and after June 30, 1987, with the consent of the carrier liable to pay the claim, under such rules, regulations and system of computation as it devises for obtaining the present value of the compensation.
A.R.S. § 23-1067(B) (emphasis added).
The Kessens assert that section 23-1067(B) requires the consent even of an uninsured employer before the ICA may approve a request for a lump-sum commutation because, by statute, an uninsured employer is liable to reimburse the Special Fund for benefit payments made on the employers behalf. See A.R.S. § 23- 907(C) (Supp. 1998). They argue that a contrary interpretation would frustrate the legislature's intent and would violate due process and equal protection principles. We disagree.
Our primary goal when interpreting a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent. See State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. 490, 493, 799 P.2d 831, 834 (1990); Martin v. Martin, 156 Ariz. 452, 457, 752 P.2d 1038, 1043 (1988). Statutory language is the best indicator of that intent and we will give term
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|