would result in an illogical and nonsensical result. In addition, because “a complete physical exam” is a part of the statutory definition of an “examination,” it too must be conducted personally. See A.R.S. § 36-501(14). ¶ 15 Case law supports this interpretation. In an analogous workmen’s compensation case, we recognized that “a mere file review and comment on the evidence is not substantial evidence on which the [court] may base a conflict of medical testimony, when compared with contrary testimony of attending or examining physicians unless it has been clearly shown that a physical examination would not be of any conceivable benefit.” Lockler v. Indus. Comm’n, 20 Ariz.App. 264, 266, 512 P.2d 27, 29 (1973) (quoting Pais v. Indus. Comm’n, 108 Ariz. 68, 70, 492 P.2d 1175, 1177 (1972)) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16 The requirement for two physicians’
holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible holding physicians testimony admissible to determine if stroke was a result of job related exertion holding that extrinsic evidence admissible to determine intent of parties holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless  related to his job duties