NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

TERE Y. BAIZE, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

MOVADO GROUP, INC., Respondent Employer,

WESTERN CLAIMS SERVICES CENTER, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 17-0072 

Special Action – Industrial Commission

No. 20161-240161

INSCA No. 047516015144

The Honorable Robert F. Retzer, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Tere Y. Baize, Phoenix

Petitioner/Employee

FILED 10-4-2018
2

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Gaetano J. Testini

Counsel for Respondent

Goering Roberts Rubin Brogna Enos & Treadwell-Ruben, P.C., Tucson

By Pamela A. Treadwell-Rubin

Counsel for Respondent Employer and Respondent Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge David D. Weinzweig

joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 In this statutory special action, Tere Baize challenges an 

Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) award and decision upon review 

finding her back injury was not compensable. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Baize began working as a part-time sales associate at a retail

store owned by Movado Group, Inc. (Movado) in January 2016.1 On 

February 18, 2016, Baize arrived for her eleventh shift at Movado 

complaining of back pain, which she attributed to “kicking off her blankets” 

while home sick the previous weekend. Another employee helped her 

perform the closing procedures that evening, which involved five to ten 

minutes of bending and squatting to close jewelry cases. Baize was sent 

home early the following day and never returned to work. She did continue 

to work at her second job, however, as a receptionist at a senior living 

facility, through May. 

¶3 On February 19, Baize visited a chiropractor and reported 

back pain that began on February 14. Six days later, Baize visited the 

 

1 We view the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the 

light most favorable to upholding the ICA’s findings and award. Polanco v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 214 Ariz. 489, 490-91, ¶ 2 (App. 2007) (quoting Roberts v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 162 Ariz. 108, 110 (1989)).
BAIZE v. MOVADO/WESTERN CLAIMS

Decision of the Court

3

emergency room, where she complained of lower back pain and numbness 

and tingling in her left leg that began two weeks before “while lifting her 

[left] leg to move blankets off of her.” A February 2016 X-ray showed mild 

degenerative changes and mild disc space narrowing at the L5-S1 vertebrae; 

a March 2016 MRI showed a protruding disc at this location.

¶4 The workers’ compensation insurer denied Baize’s claim for 

benefits in April 2016. Baize then filed an injury claim with the ICA,

alleging she had injured her lower back on February 18 after “[r]epeated 

bending and lifting” during store closing procedures.

¶5 After examining Baize, reviewing her medical records, and 

watching a surveillance videotape of Baize performing the closing 

procedures on the alleged date of injury, Jon Zoltan, M.D., opined Baize’s 

back pain was not related to her employment at Movado. Although the 

MRI showed a herniated disk at L5-S1, Dr. Zoltan was unable to make that 

diagnosis because Baize’s subjective complaints were not consistent with

his clinical examination or the radiological report. Moreover, the video of 

the closing activities did not depict any acute injury or activity 

“demonstrat[ing] stresses to neck muscles, ligaments, disks, bones, and 

nerves” that would lead to a gradual or repetitive-use injury. Thus, Dr. 

Zoltan concluded it was more likely Baize’s injuries were caused by either 

kicking off her blankets or working as a house cleaner. 

¶6 In contrast, Baize’s treating physician, Michael Steingart, 

D.O., testified her injury and symptoms could have been caused by 

repetitive bending and squatting. He did not, however, watch the 

surveillance video; nor was he aware that Baize was only briefly employed 

at Movado, that she had previously attributed the injury to kicking 

blankets, or that she continued working at a second job.

¶7 In September 2017, the administrative law judge (ALJ) noted 

a conflict in the medical testimony but accepted Dr. Zoltan’s opinion “as 

being most probably correct and well-founded.” Accordingly, the ALJ 

issued a decision denying Baize’s claim as noncompensable. That decision 

was affirmed upon review. Baize timely requested review, and we have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(2), 

23-951(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10.
BAIZE v. MOVADO/WESTERN CLAIMS

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶8 Baize argues the ICA’s award and decision are unsupported 

by the evidence.2 We disagree.

¶9 “To prove compensability, the claimant must establish all the 

elements of h[er] claim,” including that she has “suffered an injury and that 

the injury was causally related to [her] employment.” W. Bonded Prods. v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 132 Ariz. 526, 527 (App. 1982). Medical causation, at issue 

here, “requires proof that the employment caused or contributed to the 

injury,” which must be established by expert testimony if “the cause of an 

injury is not apparent to a lay person.” Hackworth v. Indus. Comm’n, 229 

Ariz. 339, 343, ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (citations omitted). 

¶10 Although the ICA heard conflicting evidence and expert 

medical testimony regarding the nature and cause of Baize’s injuries, the 

ALJ is the trier of fact tasked with resolving such conflicts. Post v. Indus. 

Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 4, 8 (1989) (citing Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397, 

398 (1975), and Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 121 Ariz. 75, 77 (App. 

1978)). “Where more than one inference may be drawn, the [ALJ] may 

choose either, and this Court will not disturb the [ALJ]’s conclusion unless 

it is wholly unreasonable.” Royal Globe Ins. v. Indus. Comm’n, 20 Ariz. App. 

432, 434 (1973) (citing Malinski v. Indus. Comm’n, 103 Ariz. 213, 217 (1968)).

¶11 The ALJ exercised his authority and resolved the conflict

presented here by adopting Dr. Zoltan’s opinions and was not 

unreasonable in doing so. Dr. Zoltan, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

performed a physical examination of Baize and reviewed Baize’s medical 

history as well as a surveillance video of the activities that she claimed

caused her injuries. Despite this conscientious review, Dr. Zoltan was 

 

2 Baize also suggests that: (1) the ICA erred in admitting certain 

evidence, and (2) Movado and its insurer acted in bad faith and engaged in 

a conspiracy to prevent her from receiving workers’ compensation benefits 

by not providing her appropriate guidance and assistance with the claim 

process. She does not develop these arguments within her brief beyond 

generalized complaints, and they are waived. See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. 

Fisher Roofing, Inc., 219 Ariz. 297, 304, ¶ 19 n.7 (App. 2008) (citing Schabel v. 

Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97, 186 Ariz. 161, 167 (App. 1996)). Baize 

likewise waived review of any issue raised for the first time in her reply 

brief. Regardless, the record reflects Baize was ultimately able to make a 

claim and that her claim was resolved fairly.
BAIZE v. MOVADO/WESTERN CLAIMS

Decision of the Court

5

unable, to any degree of medical probability, to relate Baize’s subjective 

complaints to either the objective findings regarding her condition or any

industrial injury. Although Baize presented competing evidence, we find 

no error.

CONCLUSION

¶12 The ICA decision and award are affirmed.