Klosterman v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
Arizona Court of Appeals
747 P.2d 596, 155 Ariz. 435 (1987)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Frederick J. Klosterman (plaintiff) suffered an injury to his left knee at work, and his injury was covered by workers’ compensation. Klosterman was treated by Eugene J. Chandler, M.D., for his injury, which required surgery. A few months later, Klosterman was playing frisbee when he jumped on his right leg and experienced a little collision, tearing a ligament in his left knee. Klosterman was again treated by Dr. Chandler, and Klosterman sought workers’-compensation benefits for his second knee injury. The workers’-compensation insurance carrier, Argonaut (defendant), denied coverage. Klosterman appealed. At the hearings before the Industrial Commission of Arizona, Dr. Chandler testified that playing frisbee did cause the second knee injury, but that Klosterman’s earlier knee injury and surgeries had weakened his knee, and Klosterman would not have torn his ligament playing frisbee if not for the earlier injury. Dr. Chandler’s testimony was uncontroverted. No one raised the issue of whether Klosterman’s actions in playing frisbee were unreasonable. The administrative-law judge found that Klosterman’s second injury was a new, noncompensable injury and did not address the reasonableness of Klosterman’s actions in playing frisbee. Klosterman sought administrative review, arguing that the administrative-law judge had ignored Dr. Chandler’s testimony. The decision was affirmed, and Klosterman appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grant, J.)
Concurrence (Contreas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.