dissenting.
According to the majority, “[t]he issue is whether a written record stating “wounded in combat Nam’ established the employer’s knowledge that the worker had a ‘psycho-neurotic disability following treatment in a recognized medical or mental institution.’ ” It does not, of course; the majority frames a question that answers itself. The written record does, however, establish the employer’s knowledge that it was hiring an employee with a “service related disability” attributable to a combat wound in Viet Nam. Credible testimony further establishes that the claimant’s written disclosure of this general disability led the employer to acquire more specific information at the time of hiring and to undertake to accommodate his limitations. This combination of written and oral evidence, grounded in a contemporaneous written record of general disability, is good enough in my opinion to satisfy the purposes of A.R.S. § 23-1065(0(2).
This court has interpreted § 23-1065(0(2) six times previously, and I agree with each of our past decisions. A record does not suffice which merely demonstrates employment and not that the employer knew of the employee’s disability at the time. Fremont, 182 Ariz. at 408, 897 P.2d at 710. A record does not suffice which merely demonstrates knowledge of a different, non-qualifying disability. Schuff Steel, 181 Ariz. at 445, 891 P.2d at 912. A record does not suffice which merely demonstrates that the employer learned of the past disability after the present injury and not before. Special Fund Div. (Pete King), 184 Ariz. at 367-68, 909 P.2d at 434-35. A record does suffice which demonstrates that the employer knew of pri- or surgeries that may have left some degree of physical impairment — a lumbar laminecto-my and cervical fusion in one case, a lumbar laminectomy and knee surgery in another— even though the record does not disclose that the employer knew of any actual disabilities or limitations attributable to those surgeries. Country Wide, 181 Ariz. at 412-13, 891 P.2d at 879-80; Special Fund Div. (Morin), 182 Ariz. at 347, 897 P.2d at 649. The statutory purpose is satisfied by the Special Fund’s stipulation that the employer knew of a prior *166disability (partial leg amputation) at the time of hiring, even though the employer lacks any contemporaneous writing that would satisfy the literal requirement of the statute. Transporting, 185 Ariz. at 544-45, 917 P.2d at 273-74.
These cases establish § 23-1065(C)(2) as a statute with the broad remedial purpose “to promote the hiring of handicapped workers by relieving the employer of increased compensation liability resulting from the combination of preexisting impairments and industrial injuries.” Country Wide, 181 Ariz. at 411, 891 P.2d at 878; see also Schuff Steel, 181 Ariz. at 443, 891 P.2d at 910. They interpret the contemporaneous written record requirement as a device meant to restrict the benefits of apportionment to deserving employers and to prevent false or collusive apportionment claims. See Transporting, 185 Ariz. at 545, 917 P.2d at 274, Specifically, the written record assures that an employer seeking apportionment actually knew that it was hiring or retaining a handicapped worker and has not falsely claimed such knowledge after the fact. Special Fund Div. (Pete King), 184 Ariz. at 366-67, 909 P.2d at 433-34. The writing requirement is merely evidentiary, however, and must be sensibly construed so as not to defeat the statute’s larger remedial purpose. See Transporting, 185 Ariz. at 545, 917 P.2d at 274. Thus, the writing need not supply every detail. See Country Wide, 181 Ariz. at 412-13, 891 P.2d at 879-80; Special Fund Div. (Morin), 182 Ariz. at 347, 897 P.2d at 649 (Industrial Commission may infer knowledge of residual impairment, though the written record is silent on that subject, when the written record demonstrates knowledge of prior spinal surgery). And the written record may be dispensed with altogether when the condition of impairment (an amputated limb) would so likely have been apparent that the Special Fund will stipulate that the employer had such knowledge. Transporting, 185 Ariz. at 545, 917 P.2d at 274.
This case presents a different question than those addressed before. Here, the employer has established by contemporaneous writing that it knew of the claimant’s general disability at the time of hiring, but relies on oral evidence to prove that it inquired into the specifics of his condition. We have not previously encountered a case in which a contemporaneous written reflection of disability was alleged to be too general to satisfy the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1065(C). In an anticipatory passage in Schuff Steel, however, we stated, “Whether a general reference will satisfy the written records requirement will depend on the facts presented in each case.” 181 Ariz. at 445, 891 P.2d at 912. We now encounter such a case.
The majority comments that “wounded in combat Nam” refers to “a physical injury” and that there is “no necessary connection” between a combat wound and “a mental impairment” such as PTSD. I do not disagree. The writing in question, however, was not limited to “wounded in combat Nam.” Rather, it disclosed a “service related disability” that the claimant attributed to being “wounded in combat Nam.” When a combat wound results in disability, the disability may be physical, mental, or both. The specific form of claimant’s disability was not revealed by his general written reference.
We therefore return to the question whether an employer may satisfy the written record requirement by presenting written proof that it knew of the claimant’s general disability at the time of hiring, and may establish by supplemental oral evidence that it inquired about and undertook to accommodate the claimant’s specific limitations. The majority answers this question in the negative, precluding any testimonial supplementation of written records. I find this restriction both unnecessary and unwise. Unnecessary because no such directive appears within the statute; it is purely a matter of judicial gloss. Unwise because experience— including the experience of appellate judging — teaches the futility of expecting writing to achieve a comprehensiveness and clarity that permit no supplement or explanation.
It is also self-defeating to engraft a specificity requirement onto the already suspect § 23-1065(C). That statute, we have acknowledged, clashes with The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 12101-12213 (Supp. III 1991), which prohibits employers from *167inquiring into disabilities of prospective employees. Schuff Steel, 181 Ariz. at 446, 891 P.2d at 913. We now require well-motivated employers not only to defy the Act but to document their violations with detailed specificity. Because employers will be reluctant to do so, we diminish any prospect that this remedial statute will achieve its goal; far from promoting hiring of the handicapped, we strangle that objective in red tape.
My colleagues suggest that they have no choice but to inflict these consequences on the law because the legislature has specified in § 23-1065(C) that the facts in an apportionment case are not those which might be developed with testimony; they are limited strictly to those which exist in the written records. I disagree. The legislature has specified that a candidate for apportionment must “establish^ ] by written records that the employer had knowledge of the permanent impairment.” A.R.S. § 23-1065(0(2). But the legislature has not specified that the candidate for apportionment must establish knowledge solely by written record, without recourse to testimonial supplementation or explanation. The majority simply chooses to read the statute in that way.
In contrast, although the legislature has not specified that the candidate for apportionment can establish knowledge by written record plus reasonable inference, the majority finds room for reasonable inference in the statute — and not just inescapable inference, but inferential choice. This court has twice permitted administrative law judges to infer knowledge of permanent impairment from written records, even though the records stated only that the employee had undergone past surgery and not whether the employee had emerged residually impaired. See Country Wide, 181 Ariz. at 412-13, 891 P.2d at 879-80; Special Fund Div. (Morin), 182 Ariz. at 347, 897 P.2d at 649. The majority approves the substantial range of inferential choice permitted by these cases, as do I. Yet in § 23-1065(0) the legislature no more addresses the subject of inference from written records than it addresses testimonial supplement or explanation. The majority interprets reasonable inference into the statute, but interprets credible testimony out of the statute. This is not a result that the legislature has decreed; it is simply an instance of judicial interpretive choice.
I would choose otherwise. To permit apportionment in this case would not trivialize the written record requirement or render it pointless. See Fremont, 182 Ariz. at 408-09, 897 P.2d at 710-11; Special Fund Div. (Pete King), 184 Ariz. at 367, 909 P.2d at 434. To the contrary, this written record, general as it may be, suffices to allay any concern that this employer has falsely or collusively asserted prior knowledge; it shows that this employer knew when it hired the claimant that he had been wounded in Viet Nam and claimed an abiding resulting disability. Similarly, this written record, general as it may be, suffices to identify this employer as the sort the legislature meant to benefit from apportionment — one willing to take the kind of hiring risk described in Special Fund Div. (Pete King): “Before the industrial injury giving rise to the apportionment claim, an employer hiring or retaining a handicapped worker assumes increased risks that the worker will suffer a work-related injury or aggravated disability.” 184 Ariz. at 366, 909 P.2d at 433. A contemporaneous record that satisfies these purposes ought to satisfy A.R.S. § 23-1065(0(2). To the extent that further detail is necessary or desirable, the Industrial Commission ought to consider credible testimony toward that end.
The statute of frauds, like A.R.S. § 23-1065(C)(2), imposes a written record requirement to weed out fabricated claims. But under the statute of frauds, “The required writing need not contain all the material terms of the contract and such material terms as are stated need not be precisely stated. All that is required is that the writing afford a basis for believing that the offered oral evidence rests on a real transaction.” Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) § 2-201, Official Comment One, quoted in Koenen v. Royal Buick Co., 162 Ariz. 376, 380, 783 P.2d 822, 826 (App.1989). I would similarly construe the written record requirement of § 23-1065(C)(2).
Literal interpretation should not be carried to a point that “elevates form over substance,” “frustrates the remedial purpose of *168the statute,” or accomplishes a result “such as cannot be contemplated the Legislature intended.” Transporting, 185 Ariz. at 545, 917 P.2d at 274, (quoting Garrison v. Luke, 52 Ariz. 50, 56, 78 P.2d 1120, 1122 (1938)). By a combination of written record and supplemental testimony, this employer satisfied the administrative law judge that it knew of the applicant’s mental impairment and, “[i]n spite of the impairment, [had] hired and retained the applicant and accommodated the post traumatic stress disorder.” The administrative law judge who made this finding did justice both to the facts and to the law and advanced the purpose of A.R.S. § 23-1065(C)(2). I would affirm.