Kwietkauski v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GEMMILL, Judge.
¶ 1 May a workers’ compensation insurance carrier suspend a claimant employee’s benefits under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 23-1026(0) (2012)1 for obstructing an independent medical examination (“IME”) because the claimant asserted, at the start of the IME, an intention to tape record the examination? We conclude as a matter of law that a workers’ compensation claimant who expresses an intention to record an IME, in the absence of any prior communication about recording, has not committed a “wrongful act” constituting obstruction of the IME under A.R.S. §…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lovitch v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- PFS v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
- Garza v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
- Professional Furniture Service v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
- Edmunds v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bell v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- Flores v. B & C TreeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Tapia v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2018