A. An employee who may be entitled to compensation under this chapter shall submit the employee for medical examination from time to time at a place reasonably convenient for the employee, if and when requested by the commission, the employee's employer or the insurance carrier. A place is reasonably convenient even if it is not where the employee resides if it is the place where the employee was injured and the employer or the insurance carrier pays in advance the employee's reasonable travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, food, lodging and loss of pay, if applicable.
B. The request for the medical examination shall fix a time and place having regard to the convenience of the employee, the employee's physical condition and the employee's ability to attend. A medical examination may be conducted via telehealth as defined in section 36-3601 with the consent of both the employee and the requesting party. The employee may have a physician present at the examination if procured and paid for by the employee.
C. If the employee refuses to submit to the medical examination or obstructs the examination, the employee's right to compensation shall be suspended until the examination has been made, and no compensation shall be payable during or for such period.
D. A physician who makes or is present at the medical examination provided by this section may be required to testify as to the result of the examination. The physician is not subject to a complaint for unprofessional conduct to the physician's licensing board if the complaint is based on a disagreement with the findings and opinions expressed by the physician as a result of the examination.
E. On appropriate application and hearing, the commission may reduce or suspend the compensation of an employee who persists in unsanitary or injurious practices tending to imperil or retard the employee's recovery or who refuses to submit to medical or surgical treatment reasonably necessary to promote the employee's recovery.
F. An employee shall be excused from attending a scheduled medical examination if the employee requests a protective order and the administrative law judge finds that the scheduled examination is unnecessary, would be cumulative or could reasonably be timely scheduled with an appropriate physician where the employee resides. If a protective order is requested, the burden is on the employer or insurance carrier to establish that a medical examination should be scheduled at a place other than where the employee resides. If an employee has left this state and the employer or insurance carrier pays in advance the employee's reasonable travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, food, lodging and loss of pay, if applicable, the employer or insurance carrier is entitled to have the employee return to this state one time a year for examination or one time following the filing of a petition to reopen.
G. If a physician performs an examination under this section and is provided data from the Arizona state board of pharmacy pursuant to title 36, chapter 28, the physician may disclose that data to the employee, employer, insurance carrier and commission.
Notes of Decisions
Israel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 669 P.2d 102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 70× “special action review of an Industrial Commission award suspending benefits we examine: first, the legal effect of an order of the Industrial Commission conditioning approval to leave the state upon a requirement that the worker return to the state at her own expense upon any…”
Kwietkauski v. Indus. Comm'n, 291 P.3d 365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 16× “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…”
Keeton v. Indus. Comm'n, 554 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 16× “§ 23-1027 does not contemplate the unilateral suspension of benefits by the employer and that only the Industrial Commission has the authority to suspend compensation and then only after proper application is made by the employer under A.R.S. § 23-1026(E). The Commission…”
Edmunds v. Indus. Comm'n, 616 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 14× “A carrier is required to make, at least, a prima facie showing of its right to the privilege of invoking the sanction of suspension of benefits provided by A.R.S. § 23-1026{C). Garza v. Industrial Commission, supra.”
Miceli v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 6× “We believe that the same principle is applicable to requiring an injured worker to leave his or her residence and travel to a different locality for medical examination; there must be a reasonable showing of cause.”
Rowland v. Great States Ins., 20 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 23 — 908(E) (employer may compel employee to submit to IME) (emphasis added); A.R.S. § 23-1026(A) (“An employee ... shall submit himself for medical examination .”
Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “[8] Section 1621(a) provides as follows: (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (d) of this section, an alien who is not (1) a qualified alien .”
Lasiter v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 839 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1992).
· cites it 8× “On February 5, without having sought an independent medical examination as allowed by A.R.S. § 23-1026, Industrial denied Lasiter's petition to reopen.”
Godfrey v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 602 P.2d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 9× “2 Although this court acknowledged that such is an expressly recognized statutory reason for termination or suspension of benefits, we held that “If a carrier or employer desires to terminate or suspend for the reasons set forth in A.R.S. § 23-1026(E) or A.R.S. § 23-1027, it…”
Tyree v. Indus. Comm'n, 764 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 23-1026(A) (Supp.1987). Neither § 23-1026(F) nor Rule 14 B had been enacted when the claimant in this case was directed to appear for group evaluation on November 24, 1986, his second IME within two months.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 555 P.2d 126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 5× “§ 23-908E deals with an employer’s discovery rights at the inception of a claim, A.R.S. § 23-1026 allows similar discovery examination “from time to time” during the duration of the employee’s entitlement to compensation.”
Hafner v. Beck, 916 P.2d 1105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Code R20-5-114, Rules of Procedure for Worker’s Compensation Hearings, Beck conducted the IME in a nonjudicial and nonadversarial setting pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1026. An exam conducted under that statute, according to Hafner, is simply “a method for the carrier to determine and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1026(0) — 3 cases
Kwietkauski v. Indus. Comm'n, 291 P.3d 365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“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…”
Edmunds v. Indus. Comm'n, 616 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“A carrier is required to make, at least, a prima facie showing of its right to the privilege of invoking the sanction of suspension of benefits provided by A.R.S. § 23-1026{C). Garza v. Industrial Commission, supra.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1026(A) — 13 cases
Rowland v. Great States Ins., 20 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 23 — 908(E) (employer may compel employee to submit to IME) (emphasis added); A.R.S. § 23-1026(A) (“An employee ... shall submit himself for medical examination .”
Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“[8] Section 1621(a) provides as follows: (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (d) of this section, an alien who is not (1) a qualified alien .”
Miceli v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1983).
“We believe that the same principle is applicable to requiring an injured worker to leave his or her residence and travel to a different locality for medical examination; there must be a reasonable showing of cause.”
Kwietkauski v. Indus. Comm'n, 291 P.3d 365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“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…”
Tyree v. Indus. Comm'n, 764 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“A.R.S. § 23-1026(A) (Supp.1987). Neither § 23-1026(F) nor Rule 14 B had been enacted when the claimant in this case was directed to appear for group evaluation on November 24, 1986, his second IME within two months.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1026(B) — 4 cases
Kwietkauski v. Indus. Comm'n, 291 P.3d 365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“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…”
Israel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 669 P.2d 102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“special action review of an Industrial Commission award suspending benefits we examine: first, the legal effect of an order of the Industrial Commission conditioning approval to leave the state upon a requirement that the worker return to the state at her own expense upon any…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1026(C) — 7 cases
Edmunds v. Indus. Comm'n, 616 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“A carrier is required to make, at least, a prima facie showing of its right to the privilege of invoking the sanction of suspension of benefits provided by A.R.S. § 23-1026{C). Garza v. Industrial Commission, supra.”
Kwietkauski v. Indus. Comm'n, 291 P.3d 365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“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…”
Lasiter v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 839 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1992).
“On February 5, without having sought an independent medical examination as allowed by A.R.S. § 23-1026, Industrial denied Lasiter's petition to reopen.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1026(E) — 9 cases
Keeton v. Indus. Comm'n, 554 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
“§ 23-1027 does not contemplate the unilateral suspension of benefits by the employer and that only the Industrial Commission has the authority to suspend compensation and then only after proper application is made by the employer under A.R.S. § 23-1026(E). The Commission…”
Godfrey v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 602 P.2d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“2 Although this court acknowledged that such is an expressly recognized statutory reason for termination or suspension of benefits, we held that “If a carrier or employer desires to terminate or suspend for the reasons set forth in A.R.S. § 23-1026(E) or A.R.S. § 23-1027, it…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1026(F) — 1 case
Tyree v. Indus. Comm'n, 764 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“A.R.S. § 23-1026(A) (Supp.1987). Neither § 23-1026(F) nor Rule 14 B had been enacted when the claimant in this case was directed to appear for group evaluation on November 24, 1986, his second IME within two months.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.