13.2.2.2 Multiple Awards

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

. Because of the variety of contacts which render states eligible under the Federal Constitution to apply their own workers’ compensation laws, situations arise where the administrative agencies and courts of two or more states would each be ready to grant awards to employees under their own compensation acts. The Restatement adopts the position that: “Relief may be awarded under the workmen’s compensation statute of a State of the United States, although the statute of a sister State also is applicable.”^[61]

In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt,^[62] the United States Supreme Court considered a situation where the worker was injured in Texas although he was a resident of and hired in Louisiana. The claimant received benefits under the Texas workers’ compensation laws, which provided that if a worker obtained benefits from another state, that barred receiving further compensation from Texas. The Supreme Court interpreted the statute to imply that if a worker first received benefits in Texas, the Texas remedy would be exclusive. Thus the Full Faith and Credit Clause prohibited further recovery in Louisiana.^[63]

The impact of Magnolia, however, was seriously undercut in the leading case of Industrial Commission of Wisconsin v. McCartin.^[64] In McCartin, the claimant, injured in Wisconsin, was a resident of Illinois and was hired in Illinois. The claimant procured a workers’ compensation settlement in Illinois and later obtained workers’ compensation benefits from Wisconsin. Because of the absence of an exclusive remedy statute which in “unmistakable language” directly precluded a compensation award in another state (such as was found in Magnolia to be part of the Texas workers’ compensation scheme), the Supreme Court allowed the successive recoveries. The first recovery was credited against the second award.^[65]

In City Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission,^[66] the Arizona Court of Appeals expressly adopted and...