In City of Tempe, the applicant had been a patrol officer for nine years when she responded to an emergency call at a Tempe apartment complex.
While responding to the scene, the applicant saw two victims, who had been shot in the face, and was one of several officers who found the suspect dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a nearby apartment. The applicant stopped working as a police officer within five months of the call and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). The applicant filed a claim, which was denied, and then protested the denial.
At hearing, the applicant’s witness was a former sergeant with the Tempe Police Department, whose time at the department overlapped, in part, with the applicant’s employment. The applicant’s witness retired in 2020 and started a business that provides mental health resources to first responders. He testified that the incident was unexpected, unusual, and extraordinary and explained that murder-suicides were not common in Tempe.
The defendants’ witness was a former Phoenix Police Department chief of police with almost 40 years of experience who testified that the incident was not uncommon or unusual for any police officer, that officers regularly train for the scenario, and that the applicant performed standard duties at the scene.
The ALJ found that the witnesses’ testimony conflicted on whether this type of incident was unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary. The ALJ did not make a credibility determination but resolved the conflict in the applicant’s favor because of her witness’s experience working in the same department as the applicant.
The defendants sought administrative review, which was affirmed, and then filed a statutory special action.
On appeal, the court stated that whether work-related stress was unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary is a “legal conclusion, not a medical one.” Barnes v. Indus. Comm'n, 156 Ariz. 179, 182, 750 P.2d 1382, 1385 (App. 1988). We evaluate a claimant's stress objectively “from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable person with the same or similar job duties as the claimant,” and not from the claimant's subjective experience. France v. Indus. Comm'n, 250 Ariz. 487, 491, ¶ 19, 481 P.3d 1162, 1166 (2021). When the claimant is a law enforcement officer, we assess the event from the perspective of another law enforcement officer. Id. at 492, ¶ 24, 481 P.3d at 1167.
The court noted that the ALJ adopted the applicant’s witness’s opinion not because he was more credible than the defendants’ witness, but because he had similar experience. The court found that this was an error under the standard in France. The court concluded that the ALJ erred and set aside the award.
City of Tempe v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 1 CA-IC 24-0054, 2026 WL 175101, at *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2026)
Want to know more? Contact Maura Healy at mhealy@pollartmiller.com
