top of page
Search

Lawless v. Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District - Opinion - Arizona Court of Appeals - April 29, 2025

  • Writer: Christopher S. Norton, Esq.
    Christopher S. Norton, Esq.
  • Apr 29
  • 2 min read



Facts:

Shawn Lawless, a firefighter/paramedic with over 20 years of experience, filed a workers' compensation claim for a mental stress injury, alleging that two paramedic calls on April 1 and April 7, 2022, exacerbated his pre-existing PTSD. Lawless described the scenes as "uncontrolled, extremely unsafe environments," including responding to a shooting involving a DPS officer and treating a suspect shot by police. ​ He also responded to a fatal shooting at a stop sign. ​ Lawless argued these events caused acute PTSD symptoms. ​ However, testimony from colleagues and supervisors indicated the scenes were secure, no shots were fired while Lawless was present, and the stress experienced was typical for his job duties. ​ The Industrial Commission of Arizona denied his claim, finding the stress was not "unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary." ​


Issue(s):

  1. Did Lawless experience "unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary" stress under A.R.S. ​ § 23-1043.01(B) to qualify for workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury? ​

  2. Did the ALJ err in evaluating the evidence and making factual findings? ​

  3. Does A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B) violate equal protection guarantees by treating mental injury claims differently from physical injury claims? ​


Holding:

  1. The court affirmed the denial of Lawless's claim, holding that the stress he experienced was inherent to his job duties and not "unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary." ​

  2. The ALJ's findings were detailed and supported by substantial evidence, and the court rejected Lawless's argument that the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the evidence.

  3. The court rejected Lawless's equal protection argument, citing precedent that mental injury claims are subject to different standards under the Workers' Compensation Act without violating constitutional guarantees. ​


Key Takeaways:

  • Mental injury claims under Arizona law require proof that the stress was "unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary" from the perspective of a reasonable employee with similar job duties. ​ Stress inherent to the claimant's job is not compensable. ​

  • The court defers to the ALJ's factual findings and does not re-weigh evidence unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. ​

  • Arizona's Workers' Compensation Act does not violate equal protection guarantees by imposing stricter requirements for mental injury claims compared to physical injury claims. ​

  • Benefits under the Officer Craig Tiger Act for traumatic-event counseling do not establish entitlement to workers' compensation benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. ​


Comments

bottom of page