Legal Opinion

Mace v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided January 30, 2003No. 2 CA-IC 2002-0010PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Terry Grantham Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1987
  2. Tobias v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAArizona Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Regnier v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
  5. Hughes v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Patches v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  2. Drew v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API