Legal Opinion

Kwietkauski v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided November 20, 2012No. 1 CA-IC 12-0004PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Lovitch v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  2. PFS v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  3. Garza v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
  4. Professional Furniture Service v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
  5. Edmunds v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bell v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  2. Flores v. B & C TreeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  3. Tapia v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API