Mace v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRAMMER, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Petitioner David Mace seeks review of the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) award denying him workers’ compensation benefits to pay for conjoint marriage and family counseling to which he and his family had been referred by his psychiatrist. He argues the ALJ’s decision was erroneous because the counseling was “reasonably required” to treat his condition. See A.R.S. § 23-1062(A). Citing Post v. Industrial Commission, 160 Ariz. 4, 770 P.2d 308 (1989), he also argues the ALJ’s findings are insufficient to allow appellate review. Although we disagree with his…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Terry Grantham Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1987
- Tobias v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAArizona Supreme Court · 1989
- Regnier v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Hughes v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Patches v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Drew v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013