Cited by

Comm’n, (“[It is] the long held view that the purpose of the workers’ compensation system is to dispense with, as much as possible, the litigation between employer and employee and to place upon industry the burden of compensation.

Comm’n, (quoting Dunn v. Law Offs.

Comm’n, (“Upon review, an appellate court may neither alter nor modify an [ICA] award but is limited either to affirm or set aside the award.”).

Comm’n of Ariz., , (“Any statutory construction which would exclude an employee from workers’ compensation protection will require specific language to that effect.”) (emphasis added); see also E & S Insulation Co. of Ariz. v. E.L.

We conclude that our supreme court precluded such a defense in Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Marriott II)

(citing Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, -22 , -13 (1985)).

-21 , -12 (1985) (misrepresentation on employment application does not bar compensation benefits); W.F.

-21 , -12 (1985) (misrepresentation on employment application does not bar compensation benefits); W.F.

Primary purposes of the Act include compensating claimants “for lost earning capacity,” Se nor T’s Restaurant, 131 Ariz. at 363 , 641 P.2d at 851 , preventing claimants from becoming public charges during any period of disability, id., relieving employees of the burden of compensable injuries, Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, , and diminishing litigation between claimants and employers or insurance carriers, id.

Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, , see A.R.S.

Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, -22 , -13 (1985) (citations omitted).