## Facts

- Tony Martinez suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and received more than $113,000 in Arizona workers’ compensation benefits.
- Martinez filed a third-party civil action against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, alleging a third party’s negligence caused his industrial injury.
- In October 1981, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company was added as an additional defendant in the third-party tort action.
- On February 6, 1983, Martinez died while the third-party action was pending.
- Martinez left no statutory dependents.
- A motion was filed in the superior court to substitute the personal representative of Martinez’s estate as plaintiff in place of Martinez.
- Firestone opposed substitution and moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Martinez died without dependents, Arizona’s workers’ compensation third-party statute (A.R.S. § 23-1023) prevented the action from being maintained.
- The superior court (Judge Ben C. Brown) granted substitution of the personal representative and denied Firestone’s motion for summary judgment.
- Firestone then filed a special action in the Arizona Court of Appeals against the respondent judge, seeking relief from the substitution order and the denial of summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a worker’s pending third-party tort action for an industrial injury survives the worker’s death when the worker leaves no statutory dependents.
2. Whether, after the worker’s death, the worker’s personal representative may be substituted to continue prosecuting the third-party action despite A.R.S. § 23-1023.
3. Whether the third-party defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the theory that, absent dependents, no party may lawfully maintain the action.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction.
- The court denied Firestone’s request for special-action relief.
- The court left in place the superior court’s order substituting the personal representative as plaintiff.
- The court left in place the superior court’s denial of Firestone’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the third-party case to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 23-1023 is intended to permit an injured worker who receives workers’ compensation benefits to also pursue a claim against a third-party tortfeasor, while protecting the compensation carrier’s statutory reimbursement interest.
- The workers’ compensation third-party statute does not extinguish a properly filed third-party tort action merely because the injured worker dies without statutory dependents.
- In the absence of a clear statutory bar, a pending tort claim may continue after the plaintiff’s death through substitution of the plaintiff’s personal representative under Arizona procedural and survival principles.
- The lack of dependents affects who may ultimately benefit from any recovery and how proceeds are distributed in light of the carrier’s lien/credit, but it does not provide the alleged tortfeasor a defense that ends the underlying tort claim.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that Martinez’s third-party tort action did not abate simply because he died without statutory dependents; the superior court properly substituted the personal representative of Martinez’s estate and properly denied Firestone’s summary judgment motion, so the case could continue subject to the workers’ compensation statute’s reimbursement protections.


Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Brown, 678 P.2d 515, 139 Ariz. 330 (1983)