Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BERCH, Vice Chief Justice.
¶ 1 An Arizona workers’ compensation statute requires payment for “medical, surgical and hospital benefits or other treatment, [or] nursing ... reasonably required ... during the period of disability.” Ariz.Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 23-1062(A) (1995). We have been asked to determine whether certain services provided by an injured worker’s spouse are compensable under this statute. We hold that the compensability of these services depends on the nature of the care provided and not the status or identity of the service provider. We therefore vacate the opinion…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1927
- Nicholson v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1953
- State v. BarnettArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Warren Trucking Co., Inc. v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1981
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2008
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- MEDICAL OFFICE MANAGEMENT v. HardeeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2010
- Hackworth v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Arizona Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Arizona Department of Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2017
- Darcie Schires v. Cathy CarlatArizona Supreme Court · 2021
- Shackleton v. Southern Flooring & Acoustical Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.