What Do You Think?
In Arizona, and other states, injured employees seeking benefits typically have to provide medical evidence showing that a workplace accident caused their injury. That’s generally not the case, however, if the link between an incident and illness is obvious. A case involving a driver who breathed in toxic fumes during a three-hour trip examines just how obvious that link needs to be.
The driver was hauling rocks in a dump truck. He didn’t know it at the time, but a mechanical malfunction had caused the cab to fill with exhaust fumes. He said he didn’t remember what happened once he started driving, other than what people told him. When he arrived back at the shop at lunchtime, he was staggering and appeared intoxicated. He felt very sick, he said. A foreman took him to the ER. Afterward, he felt sick for a couple of days, and had dizziness and trouble breathing.
The driver filed a claim, which the Industrial Commission found compensable. It awarded him medical, surgical and hospital benefits as well as temporary disability benefits. After the Commission’s decision was affirmed on review, the carrier and employer appealed. They argued the claim wasn’t compensable because the driver never provided expert medical testimony that the incident with the exhaust is what caused him to get sick.
An employee seeking workers’ compensation benefits in Arizona must show, though expert medical testimony, that a workplace accident caused his injury. However, expert testimony is not required when the result of the accident is clearly apparent to a layperson.
Was the claim compensable?
A. No. The driver didn’t present any medical testimony to show there was a causal connection between the exhaust in the cab and his symptoms.
B. Yes. It was clearly apparent what made him sick.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in City of Tombstone v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. 1 CA-IC 25-0032 (Ariz. Ct. App. 09/23/26), which affirmed the Commission’s finding that the injury was compensable.
The court acknowledged that in this case, the medical cause of the injury might be less obvious than in the case of a broken bone. Still, “it was sufficiently apparent to a layperson that the injury was caused by an industrial accident,” the court said. Moreover, this was not a situation where the worker was seeking benefits beyond compensation for the temporary illness he suffered from inhaling the fumes.
Moreover, it was obvious to the driver’s coworkers that the driver needed medical attention when he returned to the office. There was no dispute that they immediately took him to the ER. Finally, neither the employer nor the carrier pointed to an alternative cause of the illness.
