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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHN BOWMAN, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

WESTERN AG ENTP, Respondent Employer,

CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 21-0013 

Special Action - Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20191-330893

Carrier Claim No. WC608-D98057

The Honorable Michelle Bodi, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John Bowman, Lakeside

Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Gaetano J. Testini 

Counsel for Respondent

FILED 11-9-2021
BOWMAN v. WESTERN/CHARTER OAK

Decision of the Court

2

Lundmark Barberich LaMont & Slavin PC, Phoenix

By Lisa M. LaMont

Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 John Bowman challenges an Industrial Commission of 

Arizona (“ICA”) award finding that his work-related back injury is 

stationary, with no permanent impairment and no need for supportive care. 

He argues the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by finding the 

opinion of a doctor who performed an Independent Medical Examination 

(“IME”) more credible than that of his treating chiropractor. Because 

reasonable evidence supports the award, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 For more than seven years, Bowman worked for Western AG 

Enterprises installing large tarps as liners for reservoirs. The tarps are made 

of thick material that needs to be pulled and stretched over the bottom of 

the reservoirs to help them retain water. In April 2019, Bowman was 

involved in a particularly difficult installation due to windy conditions. He 

reported that he lost his grip on the material and fell backward onto his 

back at least four times during the installation, injuring his hand, shoulder, 

and back.

¶3 New Hampshire Insurance Company accepted Bowman’s

workers’ compensation claim for all three injuries, and he received 

treatment. His treatment prioritized his hand and shoulder injuries over 

his back injury, but his back was treated with conservative therapies 

starting in June 2019. Bowman returned to light-duty work with 

restrictions in December 2019. In June 2020, he began seeing Thomas 

Blankenbaker, D.C., who diagnosed two small fractures in Bowman’s spine 

based on a March 2020 MRI. Dr. Blankenbaker provided extensive 

treatment (51 visits over five months) in a “spinal rehabilitation program” 
BOWMAN v. WESTERN/CHARTER OAK

Decision of the Court

3

until he believed that Bowman was stable and stationary in late October 

2020.

¶4 Based on the results of an IME performed by Dr. Jason Datta 

in November 2019, the carrier issued a notice of claim status, finding 

Bowman’s back condition medically stationary and without permanent 

impairment and releasing him to unrestricted work duties related to his 

back condition. Bowman challenged that notice and the ICA held an 

evidentiary hearing focused solely on the status of his back injury.

¶5 Dr. Blankenbaker testified that he observed two fractures on 

the March 2020 MRI. He opined that the fractures occurred due to 

Bowmans’ work falls that occurred throughout his employment with 

Western AG Enterprises. Dr. Blankenbaker testified that Bowman told him 

that he had fallen to the ground “thousands of times” on the job.

Dr. Blankenbaker explained that the fractures he saw on the MRI were acute 

injuries, not a degenerative condition, although other aspects of the MRI 

showed degenerative changes to the spine as well. He described Bowman’s 

back condition at the time of hearing as stationary but opined that Bowman 

has a permanent impairment that he roughly estimated to be “around 25 

percent whole permanent impairment.” Dr. Blankenbaker recommended 

supportive care and work restrictions that precluded lifting more than 20 

pounds, standing for long periods, twisting, stooping, and bending.

¶6 Dr. Datta, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon specializing 

in the treatment of the spine, testified about the results of the IME. He 

physically examined Bowman and reviewed available medical records 

related to the back injury. Dr. Datta did not have access to the March 2020 

MRI but reviewed an MRI taken in September 2019, five months after 

Bowman was injured. That MRI showed no signs of fracture. Dr. Datta 

concluded that Bowman had suffered a lumbar strain that had resolved. In 

his opinion, Bowman’s back was stationary with no permanent impairment 

and no supportive care needed.

¶7 The ALJ resolved the medical opinion dispute in favor of 

Dr. Datta’s opinion, concluding that the low back injury portion of 

Bowman’s claim was closed with no permanent impairment. Bowman’s 

request for administrative review was unsuccessful, and he timely sought 

review by this court. 

DISCUSSION

¶8 In reviewing findings and awards of the ICA, we defer to the 

ALJ’s factual findings but review questions of law de novo. Avila v. Indus. 
BOWMAN v. WESTERN/CHARTER OAK

Decision of the Court

4

Comm’n, 219 Ariz. 56, 57, ¶ 2 (App. 2008). We will affirm an award “if it is 

reasonably supported by the evidence after reviewing the evidence in a 

light most favorable to sustaining the award.” Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 

Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002). The ALJ has the primary responsibility to 

resolve conflicts in medical evidence. Carousel Snack Bar v. Indus. Comm’n, 

156 Ariz. 43, 46 (1988). “Many factors enter into a resolution of conflicting 

evidence, including whether or not the testimony is speculative, 

consideration of the diagnostic method used, qualifications in backgrounds 

of the expert witnesses and their experience in diagnosing the type of injury 

incurred.” Id. We defer to the ALJ’s resolution of such evidence and affirm 

the ALJ’s findings if any reasonable theory of the evidence supports them. 

Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398–99 (1975).

¶9 Here, the ALJ was presented with two opposing medical 

opinions about the nature and extent of Bowman’s back injury. The 

conclusion that Dr. Datta’s testimony was more credible is reasonably 

supported by the record, especially given the absence of any evidence of 

fractures in the MRI taken closest to the injury. Although Bowman argues 

the ALJ should have followed Dr. Blankenbaker’s opinion, the ALJ was not 

compelled to do so by the evidence, and we will not disturb her resolution 

of the conflict. Where two different inferences may be drawn from the 

evidence, the ALJ has the discretion to resolve those conflicts and choose 

either inference; a reviewing court will not disturb that choice unless it is 

wholly unreasonable. Waller v. Indus. Comm’n, 99 Ariz. 15, 18 (1965).

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm the Award.