Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins ( 2005 )

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
En Banc
DAVID C. GRAMMATICO, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-04-0197-PR
Petitioner, )
) Court of Appeals
v. ) Division One
) No. 1 CA-IC 01-0117
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, )
)
) ICA Claim
Respondent, ) No. 20001-390571
)
) Carrier
AROK, INC., ) No. AZ 00008522
)
Respondent Employer, )
)
)
)
STATE COMPENSATION FUND, )
)
Respondent Carrier. ) CONSOLIDATED WITH
)
__________________________________)
)
AUSTIN KOMALESTEWA, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-04-0364-PR
Petitioner Employee, )
) Court of Appeals
v. ) Division One
) No. 1 CA-IC 03-0041
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, )
) ICA Claim
) No. 20013-370241
Respondent, )
) Carrier
STONEVILLE PEDIGREE SEED, ) No. WC-905 367138
)
Respondent Employer, )
)
)
WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, ) O P I N I O N
)
Respondent Carrier. )
)
_______________________________________________________________
GRAMMATICO v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
Industrial Commission Award
J. Matthew Powell, Administrative Law Judge
AWARD SET ASIDE
Court of Appeals, Division One
208 Ariz. 10, 90 P.3d 211 (App. 2004)
AFFIRMED
________________________________________________________________
KOMALESTEWA v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
Industrial Commission Award
Stephen W. Pogson, Administrative Law Judge
AWARD SET ASIDE
Court of Appeals, Division One
209 Ariz. 2ll, 99 P.3d 26 (App. 2004)
REVERSED
________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEYS FOR GRAMMATICO v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
JEROME, GIBSON, STEWART,
FRIEDMAN, STEVENSON & ENGLE, P.C. Phoenix
By Joel F. Friedman
Attorneys for David G. Grammatico
STATE COMPENSATION FUND Phoenix
By James F. Crane, Vice President and General
Counsel
James B. Stabler
Attorneys for AROK, Inc. and State Compensation Fund
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. Phoenix
By Randall H. Warner
Attorneys for Amici Curiae American Insurance Association,
Arizona Association of Industries, Arizona Chamber of Commerce,
Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association, Arizona Rock
Products Association, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce,
National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation,
and Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Phoenix
By Wendy G. Briggs
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Insurance Association
- 2 -
LOW & CHILDERS, P.C. Phoenix
By S. David Childers
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America
ADELMAN GERMAN PLC Scottsdale
By Daniel J. Adelman
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Trial
Lawyers Association
HARALSON, MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & McANALLY P.L.C Tucson
By Stanley G. Feldman
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Southern Arizona
Workers’ Compensation Claimants Association
________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEYS FOR KOMALESTEWA v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
Don A. Fendon Phoenix
Attorney for Austin Komalestewa
CROSS & LIEBERMAN P.A. Phoenix
By Donald L. Cross
Attorneys for Stoneville Pedigree Seed and Wausau
Insurance Companies
LOW & CHILDERS, P.C. Phoenix
By S. David Childers
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America
ADELMAN GERMAN PLC Scottsdale
By Daniel J. Adelman
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Trial
Lawyers Association
HARALSON, MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & McANALLY, P.L.C Tucson
By Stanley G. Feldman
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Southern Arizona
Workers’ Compensation Claimants Association
________________________________________________________________
R Y A N, Justice
- 3 -
¶1 Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution
mandates that an employee receive workers’ compensation if the
employee is injured in “any accident arising out of and in the
course of . . . employment,” and the injury “is caused in whole,
or in part, or is contributed to, by a necessary risk or danger
of such employment, or a necessary risk or danger inherent in
the nature thereof, or by failure of such employer or its agents
or employee or employees to exercise due care.” The issue in
these consolidated matters1 requires us to determine whether
Article 18, Section 8 precludes the legislature from requiring
proof that the presence of alcohol or illegal drugs in an
injured worker’s system was not a contributing cause of the
accident before workers’ compensation benefits may be awarded.
I
A
¶2 David C. Grammatico, who installed metal trim on
building exteriors for AROK, Inc., performed his work on drywall
stilts approximately forty-two inches in height. After working
for most of his shift on stilts, Grammatico fell while walking,
on stilts, through a cluttered area of the job site. He broke
his right wrist and left knee in the fall.
1
By separate order, we consolidated these cases for the
purposes of this opinion.
- 4 -
¶3 Grammatico admitted that he had smoked marijuana and
ingested methamphetamine on the previous two days, days he was
not required to be at work. His post-accident urine test showed
positive results for marijuana, amphetamine, and
methamphetamine, all of which are illegal to use in Arizona.
See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-3401 (Supp. 2003).
Grammatico’s employer maintained a certified drug-testing policy
under A.R.S. § 23-1021(D) (Supp. 2004). Under the terms of the
statute, if an employer maintains such a policy, “an employee’s
injury . . . shall not be considered a personal injury by
accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is
not compensable . . . if the employee fails to pass . . . a drug
test for the unlawful use of any controlled substance,” A.R.S. §
23-1021(D), unless the employee proves that the use of an
unlawful substance “was not a contributing cause of the
employee’s injury.” A.R.S. § 23-1021(D)(1). When Grammatico’s
employer’s insurer denied him benefits, he requested a hearing
before the Industrial Commission.
¶4 After the hearing, the administrative law judge found
Grammatico’s claim noncompensable because Grammatico failed to
prove that his use of unlawful controlled substances “was not
even a ‘slight contributing cause’” of his injuries. Grammatico
then filed a statutory special action in the court of appeals.
See A.R.S. § 23-951(A) (1995). The court of appeals set aside
- 5 -
the judge’s award, holding that A.R.S. § 23-1021(D) violates
Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Grammatico
v. Indus. Comm’n, 208 Ariz. 10, 16, ¶ 25, 90 P.3d 211, 217 (App.
2004). Judge Barker dissented. Id. at 16–20, ¶¶ 26-44, 90 P.3d
at 217-21.
B
¶5 Austin Komalestewa worked for Stoneville Pedigree
Seed. Shortly after he began work one morning, Komalestewa, as
he and his fellow workers often were required to do, tried to
fix a conveyor belt that had “bogged down.” He crawled under
the belt to put pressure on the drum, and his arm became caught
in the belt, resulting in serious injury. Komalestewa’s
employer’s insurance carrier denied his workers’ compensation
claim because blood tests taken at the hospital shortly after
the accident revealed alcohol in his blood. Komalestwa
protested the denial of benefits, and hearings were conducted
before an administrative law judge at the Industrial Commission.
¶6 During the hearing, Komalestwa admitted that he had
four mixed drinks containing vodka the night before the
accident. An expert testified that based on blood drawn after
the accident, Komalestewa’s blood-alcohol level at the time of
the accident would have been at least 0.176 percent. However,
Komalestewa’s wife, the employer’s site manager, and a co-worker
testified that Komalestewa did not appear intoxicated the
- 6 -
morning of the accident.
¶7 The administrative law judge initially determined that
Komalestewa had sustained a compensable injury. Subsequently,
however, upon request for review by the insurance carrier, see
A.R.S. §§ 23-942(D), -943(A)-(B) (1995), the judge determined
that the claim was noncompensable under A.R.S. § 23-1021(C)
because Komalestewa’s intoxication had contributed to the
accident. That section provides that “[a]n employee’s injury
. . . shall not be considered a personal injury by accident
arising out of and in the course of employment and is not
compensable . . . if the impairment of the employee is due to
the employee’s use of alcohol . . . and is a substantial
contributing cause of the employee’s personal injury.” Id.
“‘Substantial contributing cause’ means anything more than a
slight contributing cause.” Id. § 23-1021(H)(2).
¶8 Komalestewa filed a statutory special action in the
court of appeals. In affirming the award, another panel of that
court rejected the majority’s approach in Grammatico and held
that A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) did not violate Article 18, Section 8
of the Arizona Constitution. Komalestewa v. Indus. Comm’n, 209
Ariz. 211, 219, ¶ 31, 99 P.3d 26, 34 (App. 2004).
C
¶9 In Grammatico, Arok and the State Compensation Fund
petitioned the Court for review, and Komalestewa petitioned for
- 7 -
review in his matter. We granted review in both cases because
of the conflict between the panels of the court of appeals on
the applicability of Article 18, Section 8 and because these
cases concern a matter of statewide importance. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona
Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24 (2003).
III
¶10 Before statehood, all Arizona employees injured by
their employers’ negligence could bring common law tort actions
against them. See Consol. Arizona Smelting Co. v. Ujack, 15
Ariz. 382, 383-84, 139 P. 465, 466 (1914); Red Rover Copper Co.
v. Indus. Comm’n, 58 Ariz. 203, 210, 118 P.2d 1102, 1105 (1941);
Arizona Workers’ Compensation Handbook § 1.1, at 1-1 (Ray J.
Davis et al. eds., 1992) (hereinafter “Davis”). But success
with such actions was rare because not only did employees have
to show that the employers were negligent and that that
negligence had caused the injuries, but also because such
actions were “restricted further by the ‘unholy trinity’ of
common law defenses – contributory negligence, assumption of
risk, and the fellow servant rule.” William L. Prosser, Law of
Torts § 80, at 526-27 (4th ed. 1971); see also Red Rover, 58
Ariz. at 210, 118 P.2d at 1105.
¶11 “For twenty-five years, labor interests had
unsuccessfully lobbied for an employer’s liability act in the
- 8 -
territorial legislature.” Gordon M. Bakken, The Arizona
Constitutional Convention of 1910, 1978 Ariz. St. L.J. 1, 18.
Responding to those calls, the framers of the Arizona
Constitution in 1910 enacted Article 18, which included a wide
range of measures to protect labor. See id. at 18-20. Article
18 abolished the fellow servant doctrine and substantially
curtailed the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption
of risk. See Ariz. Const. art. 18, §§ 4, 5; Heimke v. Munoz,
106 Ariz. 26, 28-30, 470 P.2d 107, 109-11 (1970).
¶12 Although Article 18, Sections 4 and 5 restricted
employers’ common law defenses to employee negligence actions,
neither section affected the basic requirement that the employee
prove negligence and causation, an often long and expensive
process for both employees and employers. See Davis, §§ 1.1, at
1-1 & 1.3.1, at 1-6. To address this issue, Delegate Everett E.
Ellinwood, “an attorney who had served the railroads and the
Phelps Dodge Arizona interests,” John D. Leshy, The Making of
the Arizona Constitution, 20 Ariz. St. L.J. 1, 35 (1988),
introduced Proposition 72 at the constitutional convention,
which proposed to require the legislature to enact a “compulsory
workmen’s compensation law.” The Records of the Arizona
Constitutional Convention of 1910, 65-66 (John S. Goff ed.,
1991) (hereinafter “Goff”). Proposition 72 was approved and
- 9 -
adopted by the convention delegates as Article 18, Section 8.2
Id. at 549, 555, and 886.
¶13 After Arizona became a state in 1912, the first
session of the Arizona Legislature implemented the
constitutional mandate by adopting a “Compulsory Compensation
Law.” Ujack, 15 Ariz. at 384, 139 P. at 466. The present
version of the statutory scheme is found in A.R.S. §§ 23-901 to
23-1091 (1995 & Supp. 2003).
¶14 Article 18, Section 8 and the implementing statutes
provide workers in Arizona with an alternative to common law
tort actions against employers. Under this “new civil action,”
Ujack, 15 Ariz. at 387, 139 P. at 467, neither the employee’s
2
As originally enacted, Article 18, Section 8 directed the
legislature to
enact a Workmen’s Compulsory Compensation law
applicable to workmen engaged in manual or mechanical
labor in such employments as the Legislature may
determine to be especially dangerous, by which
compulsory compensation shall be required to be paid
to any such workman by his employer, if in the course
of such employment personal injury to any such workman
from any accident arising out of, and in the course
of, such employment is caused in whole, or in part, or
is contributed to, by a necessary risk or danger of
such employment, or a necessary risk, or danger
inherent in the nature thereof, or by failure of such
employer, or any of his or its officers, agents, or
employee, or employees, to exercise due care, or to
comply with any laws affecting such employment;
Provided, that it shall be optional with said employee
to settle for such compensation, or retain the right
to sue said employer as provided by this Constitution.
Goff at 1435-36.
- 10 -
nor the employer’s negligence would affect compensation. See
Davis, pt. I, at I-1.
¶15 This Court recognized that the new civil action was
simply an alternative to the still-existing common law tort
action. In Industrial Commission v. Crisman, for example, we
held that the legislature’s attempt to require pre-injury
election of either workers’ compensation or the common law tort
action was unconstitutional under Article 18, Section 8 because
it did not provide workers with the constitutionally mandated
option to elect, after the injury, to accept compensation or,
instead, sue the employer. 22 Ariz. 579, 584, 199 P. 390, 392
(1921); see also Ujack, 15 Ariz. at 388, 139 P. at 468.
¶16 In 1925, the voters amended Article 18, Section 83 to
provide for pre-injury election, thus creating a constitutional
exception to Article 18, Section 6, the anti-abrogation clause.
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 413, 418-19, 466 P.2d
18, 23-24 (1970). As Kilpatrick, 419 Ariz. at 419, 466 P.2d at
24, and Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, 107 Ariz. 572, 575, 490 P.2d
828, 831 (1971), demonstrate, Article 18, Section 6 still
protects an employee’s right to maintain a common law negligence
action against his or her employer. That right, however, is
3
The amended version of Article 18, Section 8 provided that
employees “engaged in . . . private employment, may exercise the
option to settle for compensation by failing to reject the
provisions of such Workmen’s Compensation Law prior to the
injury.”
- 11 -
subject to the exception provided in Article 18, Section 8 -
that the legislature may enact a law with the nearly irrebutable
presumption that an employee accepted the alternative of
workers’ compensation benefits unless the employee made a pre-
accident election to reject workers’ compensation and retain his
or her common law rights.
¶17 Under the Arizona Constitution, therefore, absent an
employee’s express rejection of workers’ compensation, a no-
fault system has replaced the prior fault-based tort system.
See Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 194 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 11,
984 P.2d 534, 537 (1999) (“The underlying principle of the
compensation system is a trade of tort rights for an
expeditious, no-fault method by which an employee can receive
compensation for accidental injuries sustained in work-related
accidents.”); see also Pressley v. Indus. Comm’n, 73 Ariz. 22,
28, 29, 236 P.2d 1011, 1015-16 (1951).
IV
¶18 We now turn to whether A.R.S. § 23-1021(D) and A.R.S.
§ 23-1021(C) violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and
Komalestewa contend. We begin our analysis with a brief summary
of a few principles underlying workers’ compensation law.
A
¶19 To receive workers’ compensation benefits, an injured
employee must demonstrate both legal and medical causation.
- 12 -
DeSchaaf v. Indus. Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 318, 320, 686 P.2d 1288,
1290 (App. 1984) (citing 1B Arthur Larson, Workmen’s
Compensation Law § 38.83 (1982)) (additional citations omitted).4
Article 18, Section 8 addresses legal causation. See DeSchaaf,
141 Ariz. at 321, 686 P.2d at 1291. As relevant to these cases,
Section 8 divides legal causation into three elements. First,
the employee must have been acting in the course of employment.
Second, the employee must have suffered a personal injury from
an accident arising out of and in the course of such employment.
Third, the resulting injury must have been caused in whole or in
part, or contributed to, by a necessary risk of the employee’s
employment, or a necessary risk or danger inherent in the nature
of that employment or the employer’s lack of due care.
¶20 Medical causation, in contrast, is established by
showing that the accident caused the injury. See id. By its
plain terms, Article 18, Section 8 does not limit the
legislature’s power to enact legislation affecting medical
causation. Cf. Ford v. Indus. Comm’n, 145 Ariz. 509, 518, 703
P.2d 453, 462 (1985) (stating that the constitution does not
prevent the legislature from enacting specific factors to be
considered “in determining whether industrial exposure is a
cause of an occupational disease,” thus implicitly recognizing
4
The current version of Larson also discusses this
principle. See 2 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson’s
Workers’ Compensation Law § 46.03[1], at 46-6 (2004).
- 13 -
that the legislature could enact standards for medical
causation).
¶21 Consequently, the legislature has some latitude to
establish the requisite medical causation for workers’
compensation recovery. In contrast, however, the legislature
may not define legal causation in a way that conflicts with
Article 18, Section 8 because the legislature “cannot enact laws
which will supersede constitutional provisions adopted by the
people.” Kilpatrick, 105 Ariz. at 415-16, 466 P.2d at 20-21.
B
¶22 The resolution of this case, therefore, hinges upon
whether A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) and (D) impermissibly define legal
causation by requiring proof that the presence of alcohol or
illegal drugs in a claimant’s system did not contribute to the
industrial accident. Turning first to A.R.S. § 23-1021(D)-
(D)(1), those subsections provide that an employee who fails to
pass, refuses to cooperate with, or refuses to take a qualified
alcohol or drug test, is prohibited from receiving compensation,
even if his or her injury would otherwise require compensation,
unless the employee can prove that the intoxication or unlawful
drug use was not a contributing cause of the accident.
¶23 The majority in Grammatico concluded that A.R.S. § 23-
1021(D) impermissibly restricts legal causation. 208 Ariz. at
13-14, ¶¶ 12-15, 90 P.3d at 214-15. We agree. Under Article
- 14 -
18, Section 8, an employee demonstrates legal causation by
showing that a necessary risk or danger of employment caused or
contributed to the industrial accident “in whole or in part.”
(Emphasis added.) Section 23-1021(D), however, denies
compensation to an injured worker unless the worker proves that
a necessary risk or danger of employment wholly caused the
accident. Specifically, if alcohol or illegal drug use
contributed even slightly to the accident, section 23-1021(D)
denies compensation to the employee, even if a necessary risk or
danger of employment partially or substantially caused or
contributed to the accident. Article 18, Section 8 does not
permit the legislature to limit legal causation in that manner.
See Ford, 145 Ariz. at 518, 703 P.2d at 462 (holding that A.R.S.
§ 23-901.01 (1985), which lists factors that indicate whether
employment caused an occupational disease, cannot be
constitutionally interpreted to require proof that the disease
was solely or exclusively caused by the industrial exposure).
C
¶24 Section 23-1021(C), the statute at issue in
Komalestewa, similarly runs afoul of Article 18, Section 8.
That statute provides that
[a]n employee’s injury or death shall not be considered
a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the
course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to
this chapter if the impairment of the employee is due
to the employee’s use of alcohol . . . and is a
- 15 -
substantial contributing cause of the employee’s
personal injury or death. This subsection does not
apply if the employer had actual knowledge of and
permitted, or condoned, the employee’s use of alcohol
. . . .
Id. (footnote omitted).
¶25 Although Article 18, Section 8 requires compensation
if a necessary risk or danger of employment partially caused or
contributed to the accident, section 23-1021(C) denies benefits
if alcohol or drug use contributed to the accident. Thus, even
if an accident was caused, in part, by a necessary risk or
danger of employment, A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) would preclude
benefits if alcohol was “anything more than a slight
contributing cause” of the injury. A.R.S. § 23-1021(H)(2).
Again, such a provision requires proof that an employee was not
at fault when the industrial accident occurred. Article 18,
Section 8 does not permit the legislature to enact such a
statute. See Inscoe v. DeRose Indus., Inc., 226 S.E.2d 201, 206
(N.C. Ct. App. 1976) (holding that such a requirement injects
“‘fault’ as negligence back into the statute in its broadest
sense . . . . That is, to deny relief to [an employee] . . .
would present a situation analogous to the common law
understanding of contributory negligence which, of course, has
been eliminated from Workmen’s Compensation”); see also Davis
pt. I, at I-1 (“When an injury . . . is covered by workers’
- 16 -
compensation, the worker . . . obtains no-fault protection.
Neither the employer’s nor anyone else’s fault is relevant.”).5
V
A
¶26 The dissent in Grammatico, as well as the court in
Komalestewa, concluded that the legislature is permitted to
define the phrase in Article 18, Section 8, “a necessary risk or
danger of . . . employment,” to exclude accidents occurring when
the employee has recently used illegal drugs or alcohol before
the injury. See Grammatico, 208 Ariz. at 16, ¶ 26, 90 P.3d at
217 (Barker, J., dissenting); Komalestewa, 209 Ariz. at 212-13,
¶ 1, 99 P.3d at 27-28. As the Grammatico majority correctly
pointed out, however, such a definition of “a necessary risk or
danger of . . . employment,” would impermissibly “inject[] fault
into the no-fault workers’ compensation system and effectively
abrogate[] claims for injuries partially caused or contributed
to by workplace dangers.” 208 Ariz. at 15, ¶ 20, 90 P.3d at
216. Moreover, if we agreed with the Grammatico dissent and
5
The Amicus Curiae Brief of Southern Arizona Workers’
Compensation Claimants Association (“SAWCCA”) points out that
Article 18, Section 6, the anti-abrogation clause of Arizona’s
constitution, preserves each person’s “right of action to
recover damages” for injuries. From this, SAWCCA reasons that
if an Arizona worker is deprived of the right to worker’s
compensation by a statute that introduces fault into the
worker’s compensation system, the worker retains the remedy of
bringing a common law tort action against the employer. Given
our disposition of the issues in this consolidated matter, we
need not consider SAWCCA’s argument.
- 17 -
Komalestewa opinion, the legislature could circumvent Article
18, Section 8 by defining “a necessary risk or danger” to
exclude a variety of injuries if caused in part by an employee’s
reckless or even negligent acts. The legislature, for example,
could preclude recovery for injured employees whose injuries
were caused, in part, by talking on cell phones while driving,6
by taking cold medication,7 or even by being tired on the job.
However, the language of Article 18, Section 8 and the history
behind it prohibit the legislature from enacting legislation
that injects fault into the workers’ compensation system.
B
¶27 The dissent in Grammatico further concluded that an
employee’s drug use before coming to work and suffering an
6
Studies demonstrate that talking on cell phones while
driving is extremely dangerous. See, e.g., Donald A. Redelmeir
& Robert J. Tibshirani, Association Between Cellular-Telephone
Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions, 336 New England Journal of
Medicine 453, 456 (1997) (risk of accident increased 400% for
drivers using cell phones; “relative risk is similar to the
hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the
legal limit”); David L. Strayer et al., Fatal Distraction? A
Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2
003.pdf (“cell-phone drivers may actually exhibit greater
impairments . . . than legally intoxicated drivers”).
7
Using over-the-counter cold medicine, such as Benadryl, can
significantly increase the chance of automobile accidents. See,
e.g., John M. Weiler et al., Effects of Fexofenadine,
Diphenhydramine, and Alcohol on Driving Performance, 132 Annals
of Internal Medicine 354, 362 (2000) (driving performance was
generally worse after taking Benadryl than after drinking
alcohol).
- 18 -
injury is analogous to a meat cutter intentionally cutting off
his own hand. See 208 Ariz. at 16-17, ¶ 28, 90 P.3d at 217-18
(Barker, J., dissenting); A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) (excluding
compensation for self-inflicted injuries). We find that analogy
analytically flawed.
¶28 To be sure, our courts have long held that employees
who intentionally injure themselves may not recover workers’
compensation. See, e.g., L.B. Price Mercantile Co. v. Indus.
Comm’n, 43 Ariz. 257, 268, 30 P.2d 491, 495 (1934) (“The only
injury resulting from an accident which arises out of and in the
course of employment that is not compensable under the law of
Arizona is one that the employee purposely inflicts upon himself
. . . .”);8 Lopez v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 71 Ariz. 212, 215-
16, 225 P.2d 702, 705 (1950) (upholding industrial commission’s
determination that the employee’s injury was self-inflicted, and
thus noncompensable, because circumstantial evidence showed that
the employee had ignited a stick of dynamite at his feet); Rural
Metro Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 197 Ariz. 133, 135, ¶ 7, 3 P.3d
1053, 1055 (App. 2000) (“[P]ursuant to our statutory scheme, an
employee’s injury is compensable so long as it is work related
and has not been purposely self-inflicted.”); Glodo v. Indus.
Comm’n, 191 Ariz. 259, 262, 955 P.2d 15, 18 (App. 1998) (holding
8
L.B. Price Mercantile did not refer to Article 18, Section
8, but to sections 1421 and 1426 of the Revised Code of 1928.
43 Ariz. at 268, 30 P.2d at 495.
- 19 -
that an employee cannot recover under workers’ compensation if
the injury results from an intentional act).
¶29 Intentionally self-inflicted injuries, however, bar
compensation only to those employees who clearly have purposely
inflicted their injuries. In L.B. Price Mercantile, for
example, we concluded that an employee who violated criminal
laws and was injured in the process was not barred from workers’
compensation because such a violation merely established
contributory negligence, which does not bar recovery under the
workers’ compensation scheme. 43 Ariz. at 265-68, 30 P.2d at
494-95. We explained that “[m]any people violate these
provisions, some unintentionally, and some intentionally but
certainly with no purpose of causing injury to themselves. By
no construction of the facts can it be said that [the employee]
by crossing McDowell Road in violation of traffic regulations
intended to inflict an injury upon himself.” Id. at 268, 30
P.2d at 495.
¶30 But in Glodo, the court of appeals determined that the
employee had intentionally injured himself by punching a freezer
door. 191 Ariz. at 262, 955 P.2d at 18. The court noted that
the employee had argued that “while he may have purposely
punched the freezer door, he did not ‘purposely’ fracture his
finger.” Id. The court disagreed, however, holding that “[a]n
intentional act of violence that produces an injury that should
- 20 -
be expected is not accidental.” Id.
¶31 In contrast, Rural Metro concluded that an employee’s
decision to reject medical advice, which resulted in a workplace
injury, did not constitute an intentional injury. There, the
employee had suffered a shoulder injury, which required surgery,
and was told by her doctor not to return to work. 197 Ariz. at
134, ¶¶ 2-3, 3 P.3d at 1054. She nevertheless decided to return
to work, stating that she “had no choice” because of financial
reasons. Id. at ¶ 3. She re-injured her shoulder her first day
back on the job. Id. at ¶ 4. The court of appeals upheld the
administrative law judge’s determination that the injury was
compensable, concluding that “[a]lthough such action was
arguably careless, if not reckless, no evidence was presented to
suggest, nor does Rural Metro argue, that [the employee’s]
purpose in returning to work at Rural Metro was to reinjure
herself.” Id. at ¶ 8.
¶32 In distinguishing Glodo, the Rural Metro court
emphasized that the employee in Glodo injured himself through an
“intentional act of violence.” Id. at 135, ¶ 9, 3 P.3d at 1055.
In addition, the court pointed out that the injury in Glodo was
“‘almost inevitabl[e].’” Id. at 135-36, ¶ 9, 3 P.3d at 1056
(quoting Glodo, 191 Ariz. at 264, 955 P.2d at 20). The
employee’s action in Rural Metro, in contrast, “was neither an
act of violence nor, as the [administrative law judge] found,
- 21 -
was it predictably certain to result in injury.” Id. Rural
Metro concluded, therefore, that the employee’s “shoulder
reinjury was not purposely self-inflicted.” Id. at 136.
C
¶33 Alcohol and drug use is more akin to the facts of
Rural Metro than to the facts of Glodo. While alcohol
consumption and illegal drug use shortly before work or during
work undeniably increase the chances of being injured on the
job, it cannot be unequivocally said that employees with alcohol
or drugs in their systems who sustain injuries have
intentionally injured themselves. See L.B. Price Mercantile, 43
Ariz. at 268, 30 P.2d at 495.9
9
The court in Komalestewa also used a flawed analogy to
argue that an employee who is impaired from either drugs or
alcohol has abandoned his or her employment. According to
Komalestewa, Grammatico’s fall while under the influence of
drugs is analogous to an employee who, in a moment of
tomfoolery, walks across the room on stilts while blindfolded,
simply to show his fellow employees that he could, and falls in
the process. See Komalestewa, 209 Ariz. at 218, ¶ 27, 99 P.3d
at 33. That analogy is analytically flawed because, in that
hypothetical, the employee has actually abandoned his
employment. An employee who walks across a room on stilts while
blindfolded to show fellow employees that he is capable of doing
it, is not doing anything connected to his employment. Thus, it
is fair to conclude that the employee has abandoned his
employment. See, e.g., Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Indus. Comm’n,
125 Ariz. 39, 40-41, 607 P.2d 22, 23-24 (App. 1979) (finding
that an employee who injured himself after jumping a bicycle
seventy feet from a conveyor belt into a pile of seed was not
acting in the course of employment: “‘[W]here an injury is
suffered by an employee while engaged in acts for his own
purposes or benefits, other than acts necessary for his personal
comfort and convenience while at work, such injury is not in the
- 22 -
VI
¶34 We recognize that compelling policy reasons support
banning drug and alcohol use in the workplace. In fact, the
legislature has enacted several statutes in addition to A.R.S. §
23-1021(C) and (D) to further this policy. See A.R.S. §§ 23-493
to -493.11 (1995 & Supp. 2004) (providing for, among other
things, collection of samples, scheduling of tests and
procedures for drug and alcohol testing, disciplinary
procedures, and employer protection from litigation).
Specifically, A.R.S. § 23-493.05 permits an employer to “take
adverse employment action based on a positive drug test or
alcohol impairment test,” including termination of employment.
But as the majority in Grammatico stated:
we cannot ignore that our constitutional system for
workers’ compensation requires the payment of benefits
if a necessary risk or danger of employment partially
caused or contributed to an industrial accident,
without consideration of any fault by the injured
employee. Thus, unless and until the constitution is
changed, the legislature cannot abrogate claims for
workers’ compensation for injuries wholly or partially
caused or contributed to by necessary employment risks
or dangers solely because an employee fails to pass
. . . a drug or alcohol test.
course of his employment.’”) (quoting Rodriguez v. Indus.
Comm’n, 20 Ariz. App. 148, 150-51, 510 P.2d 1053, 1055-56
(1973)). In neither Grammatico’s nor Komalstewa’s case did the
record establish, nor did the respective administrative law
judges find, that Grammatico or Komalestewa abandoned their
employment.
- 23 -
208 Ariz. at 15, ¶ 18, 90 P.3d at 216.10
¶35 Consequently, because the necessary risks and dangers
of working on drywall stilts could have partially caused or
contributed to Grammatico’s injury, A.R.S. § 23-1021(D) is
unconstitutional as applied to deny Grammatico workers’
compensation benefits. Likewise, because the necessary risks
and dangers of putting pressure on a drum to fix a “bogged down”
conveyor belt could have partially caused or contributed to
Komalestewa’s injury, A.R.S. § 23-1021(C) is unconstitutional as
applied to deny Komalestwa benefits.
VII
¶36 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court of
appeals’ decision in Grammatico setting aside the award, and
reverse the court of appeals’ decision in Komalestewa, and set
aside the award.
10
In the 2005 session of the legislature, Representative
Eddie Farnsworth introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2007,
which would have amended Article 18, Section 8 by including
language that would have precluded an injured worker from
receiving compensation “if an accident [was] caused in whole or
in part by a worker’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance.”
The resolution passed both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees
of the House of Representatives but apparently no further action
was taken on it. See Minutes of Committee on Commerce, Arizona
House, 47th Legislature, 1st Reg. Sess., 7-8 (Feb. 16, 2005),
available at http://www.azleg.state.az.us.legaltext/47leg/1r/
comm_min/house/216comm.doc.htm; Minutes of Arizona House
Committee on Judiciary, 47th Legislature, 16-17 (Feb. 24, 2005),
available at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/47leg/1r/comm_
min/house/0224jud.doc.htm.
- 24 -
__________________________________
Michael D. Ryan, Justice
CONCURRING:
_________________________________________
Ruth V. McGregor, Chief Justice
_________________________________________
Rebecca White Berch, Vice Chief Justice
_________________________________________
Andrew D. Hurwitz, Justice
_________________________________________
Charles E. Jones, Justice (Retired)
- 25 -