Universal Roofers v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ.

OPINION

NOYES, Judge.

Petitioner Carrier (“Argonaut”) challenges the Industrial Commission’s denial of its claim for apportionment. The only question presented is the meaning of the following language in AR.S. section 23-1065(C) (Supp. 1995): “an additional permanent impairment not of the type specified in § 23-1044, subsection B.” Argonaut argues that this language should be interpreted to include an impairment which is of the type specified if it is compensated as an unscheduled disability. Because we conclude that such interpretation amounts to an amendment of the statute, we affirm.

I

The…