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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARIA de la PAZ SALGADO, Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent Employer,

TWIN CITY FIRE INS. CO. THE HARTFORD, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 14-0051

Special Action - Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20130-980299

Carrier Claim No. YZS53406C

The Honorable Layna Taylor, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD SET ASIDE

COUNSEL

Snow, Carpio & Weekley, PLC, Phoenix

By Erica González-Meléndez

Counsel for Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Andrew F. Wade

Counsel for Respondent ICA
2

Klein, Doherty, Lundmark, Barberich & La Mont, P.C., Tucson

By Eric W. Slavin

Counsel for Respondent Employer/Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

K E S S L E R, Judge:

¶1 This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission of 

Arizona (“ICA”) decision upon review for a non-compensable claim. One 

issue is presented on appeal: whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) 

erred by finding that the petitioner employee (“claimant”) failed to file her 

workers’ compensation claim within one year after her claim accrued.

Because we find the ALJ’s award on untimeliness is erroneous, we set it 

aside.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(2) (2003), 23-951(A) (2012), and 

Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10.1 In reviewing findings 

and awards of the ICA, we defer to the ALJ’s factual findings, but review 

questions of law de novo. Young v. Indus. Comm’n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270, ¶ 14, 

63 P.3d 298, 301 (App. 2003). We will vacate an award if it is based on an 

erroneous application of the law. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 

507, 511, ¶ 11, 217 P.3d 1212, 1216 (App. 2009) (“[A] court abuses its 

discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching its decision or the 

record fails to provide ‘substantial support’ for the decision.” (citation 

omitted)). 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 The claimant worked for the respondent employer, Taser 

International, Inc. (“Taser”), as a solder assembly worker. She filed a 

worker’s report of injury on April 5, 2013, for a gradual bilateral hand and 

arm injury resulting from performing repetitive work activities, claiming 

 

1 We cite the current version of the applicable statute when no revisions 

material to this decision have since occurred.
PAZ SALGADO v. TASER/TWIN CITY

Decision of the Court

3

the date of injury was December 20, 2012. The respondent carrier, Twin 

City Fire Insurance Company c/o The Hartford (“Twin City”), denied her 

claim for benefits, and she timely requested an ICA hearing. 

¶4 The ALJ held a hearing for testimony from the claimant and 

her treating surgeon. Following the hearing, the ALJ entered an award for 

a compensable claim based on an injury effective December 20, 2012. Taser 

requested administrative review solely on the theory that the claim was 

untimely filed. The ALJ then reversed her award and entered a decision 

upon review for a non-compensable claim, finding the claim was untimely 

filed. The claimant next brought this appeal. 

DISCUSSION

¶5 The claimant argues the ALJ erred by finding that her 

workers’ compensation claim was untimely filed. The statute of limitations 

for workers’ compensation claims requires a claim to be filed “within one 

year after the injury occurred or the right thereto accrued. The time for 

filing a compensation claim begins to run when the injury becomes 

manifest or when the claimant knows or in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence should know that the claimant has sustained a compensable 

injury.” A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) (Supp. 2014). 

¶6 The Arizona Supreme Court has held that the one-year period 

for filing a workers’ compensation claim does not begin to run until the 

injured employee recognizes or should have recognized: (1) the nature of 

his injury, (2) the seriousness of the injury, and (3) the probable causal 

relationship between the injury and the employment. Pac. Fruit Express v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 153 Ariz. 210, 214, 735 P.2d 820, 824 (1987). As the court 

explained, the time to file a claim “begins to run when the claimant knew 

or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the injury.” 

Id. at 213, 735 P.2d at 823. The court further explained, however, that “when 

an injury is ‘slight or trivial at the time and noncompensable and later on 

develops unexpected results for which the employee could not have been 

expected to make a claim . . . then the statute runs . . . from the date the 

results of the injury became manifest and compensable.’” Id. at 213-14, 735 

P.2d at 823-24 (citation omitted). Thus, “[t]he time period for filing a claim 

does not begin to run until the claimant, judged by the standard of a 

reasonable person, recognizes the ‘nature, seriousness and probable 

compensable character’ of his injury.” Id. at 214, 735 P.2d at 824 (citation 

omitted). In other words, the time for filing a claim “begins to run when 

the injured employee perceives the nature and seriousness of the injury and 

recognizes the causal relationship between his injury and his employment.” 
PAZ SALGADO v. TASER/TWIN CITY

Decision of the Court

4

Id. Finally, the court held that “[f]or an injury to be serious and not slight or 

trivial, the symptoms must be of sufficient magnitude. . . . Awareness of the 

permanence of a condition is a factor when determining the magnitude of the 

injury.” Id. (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).

¶7 Under that test, the record shows the time to file a claim began 

either in May or June 2012 or November 2012, within one year of when 

claimant filed her claim. The claimant testified she began work at Taser in 

August 2007. She initially worked on the assembly line, and then later,

began soldering an average of 300 electronic circuit boards per day. The 

claimant worked ten hours per day, four days per week. She began to feel 

hand and arm pain in 2010, but she thought it was only temporary as she 

did not have pain on nonworking days. Although the claimant believed 

her work caused her pain, she did not report it to her employer because it 

was transient and her coworkers advised her not to do so. 

¶8 In May 2012, the claimant began working a lot of overtime, 

including working much longer days and working on weekends. At this 

point, her symptoms substantially worsened and became constant. By 

November 2012, the pain and numbness in her hands had become 

unbearable and she had lost her grip strength, so in December 2012, she 

went to see her family practitioner. At that point, she was afraid of losing 

her hands and she could no longer handle the symptoms. Her doctor

obtained EMG testing, and based on the results, referred her to Sebastian 

Ruggeri, M.D., a hand specialist, for treatment. The claimant’s family 

practitioner also recommended that she stop her soldering work and 

provided her with a doctor’s note for her employer. The claimant’s

supervisor told her that there was no other work available. The claimant 

then spoke with human resources and she was offered time off under the 

Family Medical Leave Act. 

¶9 With regard to her hand symptoms, the claimant gave the 

following testimony on cross-examination:

Q. [By Mr. Reynoso] And in 2010, you started noticing more 

symptoms after you started soldering?

A. [Claimant] Yes.

. . . .
PAZ SALGADO v. TASER/TWIN CITY

Decision of the Court

5

Q. So your symptoms were getting worse?

A. That’s right.

Q. And in 2010, you did not go to a doctor, correct?

A. No.

Q. In 2010 when your symptoms were getting worse, did you 

have any idea what was causing your hand numbness and the 

pain in your arm?

A. My work.

Q. Did your symptoms continue to worsen during 2010?

A. Yes. They started getting worse from May to June when I said 

that we -- when I had to work without any rest for ten hours, that’s 

when my symptoms got worse. 

JUDGE TAYLOR: In June of what year?

THE WITNESS: of 2012.

Q. BY MR. REYNOSO: Okay. And tell me why you didn’t go 

to the doctor in 2010 when you noticed your symptoms 

getting worse.

A. Well, first I didn’t pay very much attention to it because I 

thought it was gonna go away, and the second thing, I talked 

it over with my fellow workers and they told me that the first 

thing that was gonna happen if I should complain about my 

pains and my numbness to my boss was that they were gonna 

fire me immediately.

. . . .

Q. What helps you make the determination that it was your 

work causing your symptoms? Was it that on your off days, 

you wouldn’t have those symptoms, correct?

A. That’s right.

(Emphasis added.) 
PAZ SALGADO v. TASER/TWIN CITY

Decision of the Court

6

¶10 Dr. Ruggeri testified that he first saw the claimant on January 

22, 2013. At that time, he recorded:

Chief Complaint – right hand numbness and pain –

Description–The patient states she has been having numbness 

and pain in her right hand, getting progressively worse since 

May 2011. The patient states that the pain starts at the 

fingertips and moves back towards her wrist.

He diagnosed the claimant with median neuritis of the right hand with 

tendonitis of the right hand and wrist, and he operated on the claimant’s 

right hand on February 25, 2013. It was his opinion that the claimant’s work 

activities were a contributing cause of her condition.

¶11 In her initial award, the ALJ found that the claim was 

compensable effective December 20, 2012. After considering the petition 

for review, the ALJ issued the decision on review, finding:

Here, the [claimant] knew there was a connection between her 

symptoms and her work back in 2010. I cannot credit her 

testimony that she did not seek medical attention, file a claim 

or report the symptoms to her employer until 2012 because 

she thought her symptoms would go away, as she testified 

that her symptoms continued to worsen over time beginning 

in 2010. Based on that worsening, she knew, or should have 

known, the seriousness of her condition. Therefore, it is found 

that the [claimant’s] claim was untimely filed, and the 

Industrial Commission lacks jurisdiction to further consider 

her claim.

¶12 The ALJ relied on the claimant’s testimony that her symptoms 

began to worsen in 2010 to find that her claim became manifest before 2012. 

That decision was erroneous because it misapplied the test for when an 

injury is manifest. As explained above, an injury is manifest in part based 

on the employee’s understanding that the injury is serious and not trivial 

in nature. The evidence does not show the injury was serious and not trivial 

in nature nor that the claimant should have known of the seriousness of the 

injury to file a claim until at least May or June 2012. Claimant expressly 

testified her hand symptoms began in 2010 and only occurred on the days 

that she worked and the pain would go away when she did not work. In 

May or June 2012, the claimant began to work six days per week. She stated 

that between then and November 2012, her symptoms dramatically 

worsened and became constant to the point where she was losing her ability 
PAZ SALGADO v. TASER/TWIN CITY

Decision of the Court

7

to grip items with her hands, the pain would no longer go away on the 

weekends, and she was afraid of losing her hands. She filed her claim in 

April 2013, within one year of that sudden increase in seriousness of the 

condition. Under the Pacific Fruit test, that claim was timely.

¶13 Our conclusion that the ALJ erred in concluding the claim 

untimely finds further support in Saylor v. Indus. Comm’n, 171 Ariz. 471, 831 

P.2d 847 (App. 1992). In Saylor, the employee was initially injured in a slip 

and fall at work in July 1989. 171 Ariz. at 472, 831 P.2d at 848. She went to 

see a physician, but returned to work three days later experiencing 

intermittent pain and treating it with ibuprofen. Id. In July 1990, the pain 

increased when she stretched at her work. Id. The medical evidence 

showed a herniated disc as a result of the first incident, but no injury due 

to the second incident. Id. at 473, 831 P.2d at 849. A claim on the second 

incident was filed, and approximately two weeks after that claim was 

denied she filed a claim on the 1989 injury. Id. at 472-73, 831 P.2d at 848-49.

The two claims were consolidated and the ALJ ruled that the claim on the 

1989 injury was filed more than one year from that date of injury because 

the injury was manifest and the employee could not have thought it to be 

slight or trivial. Id. at 473, 831 P.2d at 849. This Court reversed, finding 

insufficient evidence from which the ALJ could have concluded that the 

employee “should reasonably have known of the nature and seriousness of 

her injury.” Id. As we explained, she could not have been held responsible 

for failing to personally equate her pain with a herniated disc, and she was 

not “given any reason to believe she had suffered a more serious injury” by 

the physician who saw her after the first injury. Id. at 473-74, 831 P.2d at 

849-50. We found significant that the employee continued to work for more 

than a year without seeing another doctor and self-treated with only 

ibuprofen. Id. at 474, 831 P.2d at 850. As we concluded, those facts could 

“reasonably be viewed as evidence of only one thing: that she failed to 

realize both the nature and seriousness of her injury. Only after the pain 

became significantly worse following the second incident . . . did she have 

reason to believe she had suffered a more serious injury.” Id.

¶14 The facts in this case are even stronger than those in Saylor to 

conclude the claim was timely. Here, the claimant’s pain was so minor until 

May 2010 that she saw no need to see a physician and it would go away on 

the weekends. This would not have put her on notice of a serious injury 

and certainly not that she was suffering from a condition requiring surgery. 

Only in May or June 2012, after a significant increase in the numbers and 

days of her working did claimant suffer from pain that would not go away 

when she was not working and when, by November, she could not grip 

items with her hands, leading her to see a physician for fear of losing her 
PAZ SALGADO v. TASER/TWIN CITY

Decision of the Court

8

hands. That evidence does not show claimant realized both the nature and 

seriousness of her injury prior to May 2012, if indeed the injury was that 

serious prior to her increase in working hours and days.

CONCLUSION

¶15 For all of the foregoing reasons, we set aside the decision 

upon review which concluded the claim was untimely.