Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellees Randall and Penny West were charged with child abuse after an infant in their foster care died from severe head trauma. During their joint trial, each moved for an acquittal at the close of the Stateâs case and after the close of evidence. The trial court denied those motions. The jury found both guilty on child abuse charges. After the trial, Appellees renewed their motions for acquittal which this time was granted by the trial court. The court held that there was no evidence to prove who injured the child. The appellate court reversed the trial courtâs decision granting Appelleesâ motions. The appellate court used the Supreme Courtâs holding in the âHyderâ case. Upon review of this case, the Supreme Court overturned its holding in âState ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Courtâ (âHyderâ), which placed conditions on trial courtsâ granting of post-verdict motions for acquittal. The Court held that the âHyderâ case was now inconsistent with state law. In this case, the trial judge thoroughly explained his reasons for granting defendantsâ post-verdict motions. Because the appellate court reviewed the trial courtâs ruling under âHyderâ conditions, it did not determine whether the trial courtâs record reflected substantial evidence to warrant the convictions. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate courtâs decision, remanded the case for the lower court to address the sufficiency of the evidence and the merits of the trial courtâs decision.

A state administrative rule provides that a physician should rate an injured worker's impairment using standards set forth in the "most recent edition" of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). Appellee Jesus Gutierrez injured his back in 2007 while working for a framing company. His claim for workers' compensation was accepted and he received medical treatment. The treating physician later released Appellee to return to work with physical restrictions. Concluding that Appellee was not permanently impaired, the insurance carrier (the "carrier") closed the claim. Appellee requested a hearing to challenge the "no impairment" determination. At the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard testimony from two physicians: Appellee's treating physician and one presented by the carrier. Appellee's physician relied on the Fifth Edition of the AMA Guides; the carrier's physician relied on the Sixth Edition. Based on the insurance carrier's expert, the ALJ found that the carrier did not err in closing Appellee's claim. On special review, the appellate court affirmed the ALJ's decision. The issue before the Supreme Court was framed to address whether "the most recent edition" as specified in the Arizona Administrative Rules refers to the edition that was most recent when the Rule was promulgated or the latest edition existing when the claimant's impairment was rated. The Supreme Court on review of the lower courts' decisions found that the Rule's "fair and sensible meaning" anticipated that the guides would change and that "an evolving standard was intended." The Court affirmed the award and decision of the ICA.