IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

KEVIN MILLER, Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

SUN DEVIL FIRE EQUIPMENT, Respondent Employer,

AMERISURE INSURANCE, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 15-0075

Special Action - Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20121-450351

Carrier Claim No. 1272801

Aryka S. Radke, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD SET ASIDE

COUNSEL

Snow, Carpio & Weekley, P.L.C., Phoenix

By Dennis R. Kurth

Counsel for Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Jason M. Porter

Counsel for Respondent ICA

Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C., Phoenix

By Stephen C. Baker

Counsel for Respondents Employer and Carrier
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

2

OPINION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the opinion of the Court, 

in which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

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

Arizona (“ICA”) award and decision upon review finding the back injury 

of the petitioner employee, Kevin Miller (“claimant”), medically stationary. 

The dispositive issue presented is whether the award of the administrative 

law judge (“ALJ”) adopting the opinion of Edward J. Dohring, M.D., and 

terminating the claimant’s active medical treatment violated principles of 

issue or claim preclusion. Because preclusion applies, the ALJ erred by 

adopting Dr. Dohring’s opinion; accordingly, we set aside the award.

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY1

¶2 The claimant installed fire alarms and security systems for the 

respondent employer, Sun Devil Fire Equipment, Inc. (“Sun Devil”). In

May 2012, the claimant sustained a back injury when the company vehicle

he was driving was rear-ended. He filed a workers’ compensation claim, 

which was accepted for benefits by the respondent carrier, Amerisure 

Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). The claimant received conservative 

medical treatment until his claim was closed following an independent 

medical examination (“IME”) by John Beghin, M.D., a board-certified 

orthopedic spinal surgeon.

¶3 The claimant timely protested, and ALJ Robert F. Retzer

heard testimony from the claimant; his treating orthopedic spinal surgeon, 

Michael Howard Winer, M.D.; and Dr. Beghin, the carrier’s medical expert. 

In a December 2013 award, the ALJ adopted Dr. Winer’s causation and 

treatment opinions and continued the claimant’s medical benefits. That

award became final, and the claimant continued to receive treatment from 

Dr. Winer. Amerisure later sent the claimant to Dr. Dohring, another spinal 

specialist, for a new IME, conducted on July 30, 2014. Based on Dr. 

 

1 We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the 

ALJ’s award. Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16, 41 P.3d 640, 

643 (App. 2002).
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

3

Dohring’s report, Amerisure again closed the claimant’s claim for active 

medical treatment.

¶4 Again, the claimant timely protested. In 2015, a different ALJ,

Aryka S. Radke, heard testimony from the claimant, Dr. Winer, and Dr. 

Dohring. In an August 2015 award, the ALJ adopted Dr. Dohring’s opinion 

and not Dr. Winer’s—whose opinion on the same issues had been earlier 

accepted by ALJ Retzer—and closed the claim for active medical treatment, 

allowing for only supportive care. The claimant timely requested 

administrative review, arguing in part the ALJ was precluded as a matter 

of law from relying on Dr. Dohring’s opinion. The employer and carrier 

responded to the merits of that argument, and urged that the award be 

affirmed. After reviewing the memoranda of counsel and the file, the ALJ 

affirmed the award.

¶5 The claimant then timely brought this petition. We have 

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

(2016) and 23-951(A) (2012), and Rule 10 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure 

for Special Actions.

II. ANALYSIS

¶6 The claimant argues that principles of preclusion should have

prevented the ALJ from adopting Dr. Dohring’s opinion and terminating 

his active medical benefits.2

 

2 Generally, preclusion is an affirmative defense which, if not timely 

raised before the ALJ and referenced in the subsequent award, is considered 

waived. See generally Superlite Bldrs. v. Indus. Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 51, 53, 612 

P.2d 507, 509 (App. 1980); Cotton v. Indus. Comm’n, 26 Ariz. App. 58, 61, 546 

P.2d 35, 38 (1976). Timely notice of the defense also allows the ALJ the 

opportunity to consider the issue, and also allows the parties a full 

opportunity to develop the record at the hearing as it relates to that issue.

See, e.g., Priedigkeit v. Indus. Comm’n, 20 Ariz. App. 594, 598, 514 P.2d 1045, 

1049 (1973) (recognizing that parties need to raise issues as early as possible 

in the hearing process to allow for thorough consideration and a complete 

record). Here, it appears the claimant did not raise the issue or otherwise 

object to Dr. Dohring’s opinion until he requested administrative review by 

the ALJ. Neither the response to the claimant’s request for review nor the 

answering brief argued that the claimant has waived the preclusion issue; 

accordingly, we consider the issue on the merits.
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

4

¶7 Because workers’ compensation claims are administered 

sequentially, phases of the process (e.g., compensability, average monthly 

wage, transfer from total temporary to partial disability status, medically 

stationary status, impairment rating, loss of earning capacity, award of 

permanent benefits, etc.) are resolved by a carrier’s separate Notices of 

Claim Status, and if protested, by separate determinations by an ALJ. When 

any of these determinations, either by Notice of Claim Status or by ALJ 

decision, become final, they are entitled to preclusive effect. See, e.g., 

Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 17 Ariz. App. 7, 9-10, 494 P.2d 

1353, 1355-56 (1972) (recognizing that workers’ compensation claims are 

administered through a progression of separate claim stages).

¶8 An ICA award has preclusive effect through application of 

principles of issue preclusion and claim preclusion. See Circle K Corp. v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 179 Ariz. 422, 428, 880 P.2d 642, 648 (App. 1993). Issue 

preclusion bars relitigation of an issue that was previously litigated, 

determined, and essential to a final judgment. Special Fund Div., Indus. 

Comm’n v. Tabor, 201 Ariz. 89, 92, ¶ 20, 32 P.3d 14, 17 (App. 2001) (citing 

Circle K Corp., 179 Ariz. at 425, 880 P.2d at 645); Red Bluff Mines, Inc. v. Indus. 

Comm’n, 144 Ariz. 199, 204-05, 696 P.2d 1348, 1353-54 (App. 1984). “[I]ssue 

preclusion may apply when successive claim stages have issues of fact or of 

law in common.” Thomas M. Gordon and Melinda K. Poppe, Reopening, 

Rearrangement, and Settlement, Arizona Workers’ Compensation Handbook 

§ 11.4.2 (Ray J. Davis et al. eds., 1992). Claim preclusion bars relitigation of 

the same claim, i.e., preclusion of matters actually decided or that could 

have been decided after a timely protest. W. Cable v. Indus. Comm’n, 144 

Ariz. 514, 518, 698 P.2d 759, 763 (App. 1985).

¶9 The applicability of preclusion to a workers’ compensation 

matter is a mixed question of fact and law; accordingly, we apply a 

deferential standard of review to the determination of disputed facts 

supported by reasonable evidence, and apply an independent standard of 

review to the ultimate determination of whether these facts trigger 

preclusion. A.J. Bayless v. Indus. Comm’n, 179 Ariz. 434, 439, 880 P.2d 654, 

659 (App. 1994); see also Aguayo v. Indus. Comm’n, 235 Ariz. 413, 417, ¶ 17, 

333 P.3d 31, 35 (App. 2014) (“Unless the applicability of issue preclusion 

involves disputed questions of fact, its applicability is a question of law for 

this court to determine independently.” (quoting Tabor, 201 Ariz. at 92, 

¶ 20, 32 P.3d at 17)).

¶10 To determine whether preclusion applies, we examine the 

issues raised and the evidence presented at the 2013 and 2015 hearings.
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

5

¶11 Pertinent pre-injury medical history for the claimant indicates 

he was in a 1999 motor vehicle accident that caused a burst fracture of his

L4 disc and required a fusion with placement of rods and screws at the L2-

L5 levels. After two years, however, the claimant had made a full recovery

and had no work restrictions.

¶12 At the time of his industrial injury in 2012, the claimant had 

worked at Sun Devil for several years as the lead technician on an 

installation crew, performing physically strenuous work. He was driving 

a company truck in heavy traffic when his vehicle was rear-ended. Initially, 

the claimant had neck and low back pain, but after several days, the pain 

began to radiate down his right leg. He received conservative treatment at 

Concentra, but when his symptoms continued, he was referred to 

specialists for additional diagnostic testing and treatment.

The 2013 Hearings and ICA Award

¶13 In June 2013, the claimant came under the care of Dr. Winer, 

a board-certified orthopedic spinal surgeon, who diagnosed the following:

1. Pre-existing L2-L5 lumbar fusion.

2. Previous L4 burst fracture status post laminectomy fusion 

with residual epidural changes and arachnoiditis[3]

evident behind L4.

3. L5-S1 facet arthrosis.[4]

 

3 “Arachnoiditis” is inflammation and formation of scar tissue, in this 

case, in the cauda equina, which houses a collection of spinal nerves and 

nerve roots from the lumbar spine. See Dorland’s Illustrated Medical 

Dictionary (“Dorland’s”) 126 (25th ed. 1974). Irritation and/or compression 

in the cauda equina can produce pain and disrupt sensation and movement. 

The parties agree the claimant has arachnoiditis as a result of his 1999 

accident, and that the 2012 industrial injury has aggravated that condition 

and made it symptomatic.

4 “Facet arthropathy” refers to arthritic changes in the posterior bones 

of the spine, here at the L5-S1 level. See generally Dorland’s at 148, 563-64. 

These arthritic changes, also referred to as foraminal narrowing, can be the 

result of the aging process or trauma or a previous back injury, or a 

combination of such factors.
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

6

4. Cervical sprain/strain as a result of motor vehicle accident 

with mild residual posterior cervical myofascial pain.

5. Aggravation of pre-existing but asymptomatic 

arachnoiditis with L5 radiculopathy[5] on the right.

6. Aggravation of pre-existing facet arthrosis with persistent 

lumbar pain as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

7. Right [sacroiliac (“SI”)] joint dysfunction onset as a result of 

motor vehicle accident.

¶14 Dr. Winer reported that, notwithstanding the carrier’s 

administrative closure of the case, the claimant had, in addition to the 

industrially related aggravation of pre-existing conditions, a right SI joint 

condition causally related to the industrial injury, all of which required 

further evaluation and active medical treatment:

Assuming his claim is . . . reopened to active care, the first step 

would be a new MRI and a reevaluation at that time. An 

additional trial with active physical therapy might be next. 

Assuming after he recovers from his current treatments, the 

positive findings in the right SI joint remain, I would 

recommend repeat right SI joint without sedation with 

evaluation pre- and post[-]injection in order to gauge the 

percentage of improvement immediately following the 

injection. If this again significantly improves his pain shortterm, I would repeat the procedure one more time with a 

combination of lidocaine plus Marcaine in order to reassess 

his improvement following the injection.

I do feel he has symptomatic facet arthropathy at L5-S1, i.e., the only 

level below his fusion. I also feel he has aggravated pre-existing 

arachnoiditis with resultant L5 radiculopathy on the right. This 

might also be related to his L5 foraminal narrowing.

(Emphasis added.) Dr. Winer testified that if the conservative treatment 

was unsuccessful, the claimant might need an SI joint fusion and/or an 

extension of his existing fusion to the L5-S1 level.

¶15 Dr. John Beghin, also a board-certified orthopedic spinal 

surgeon, testified regarding his examination of the claimant. Dr. Beghin

diagnosed a soft tissue injury—specifically, a back strain/sprain from the 

 

5 “Radiculopathy” is disease of the nerve roots, often resulting in 

radiation of pain or other abnormal sensation. See Dorland’s at 1303.
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

7

industrial injury that caused an acute stretching of the pre-existing 

arachnoiditis at L4, which resulted in inflammation and triggered an L5 

radiculopathy on the right side. Dr. Beghin testified he did not endorse any 

treatment of the SI joints, stating that, in his opinion, such treatment had

not been scientifically validated. Dr. Beghin concluded that the claimant’s 

condition was stationary and required no additional active medical 

treatment.

¶16 ALJ Retzer was thus asked to decide whether the 2012 

industrial accident was merely a soft tissue injury, expected to resolve with 

only some supportive care, or whether it caused any direct injury to the 

claimant’s SI joints and/or disrupted the pre-existing, abnormal but 

asymptomatic spinal and neuro-spinal conditions caused by the 1999 

accident, and required continuing active medical investigation and 

treatment. The ALJ explicitly adopted Dr. Winer’s opinion, which he 

summarized in part as follows:

[Dr. Winer’s] diagnosis of this industrial injury is aggravation 

of the [claimant’s] pre-existing facet arthrosis and his S/I joint 

arthrosis and his L2-L5 fusion with radiculopathy. . . . He was 

of the opinion the [claimant] was not stationary and needed 

further treatment in the form of a repeat MRI, a course of 

physical therapy, possible repeat S/I joint injections, possible 

S/I joint fusion and possible extension of the [claimant’s]

fusion to include L5-S1.

In adopting Dr. Winer’s opinion, the ALJ entered an award in favor of the 

claimant, authorizing the further medical investigation and management 

recommended by Dr. Winer.6 Neither Sun Devil nor Amerisure challenged 

the award, and it became final. The claimant’s sacroiliac condition did 

somewhat improve under Dr. Winer’s further care, but his symptoms and 

abnormal physical findings at L5- S1 persisted, and Dr. Winer proposed a 

trial of epidural injections at the L5-S1 level. In response, the carrier 

arranged an orthopedic spinal evaluation by Dr. Dohring and, on the basis 

of his report, closed the claimant’s case for active medical treatment. The 

claimant again protested the closure of the medical aspect of the case, and 

the case was assigned to ALJ Radke, who convened hearings to obtain the 

testimony of the claimant, Dr. Winer, and Dr. Dohring.

 

6 The award included medical, surgical, and hospital benefits “until 

such time as [the claimant’s] condition becomes medically stationary.”
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

8

The 2015 Hearings and Award

¶17 In the subsequent hearings held in March and June 2015, Dr. 

Winer testified he had last seen the claimant on March 4, 2015. At that time, 

the claimant still had low back pain radiating down the outside of his right 

leg. The doctor described the presence of abnormal facet joint pathology 

on both sides of the claimant’s spine, and diagnosed “symptomatic right L5 radiculopathy with some numbness and weakness in the appropriate L-5 

innervated muscles.” Dr. Winer testified the claimant’s SI joint pain had 

improved,

7 and opined that the industrial injury had aggravated the 

claimant’s bilateral L5-S1 foraminal stenosis, causing the persistent 

symptoms of right L5 radiculopathy. Dr. Winer’s opinion was supported 

by a March 11, 2014 MRI that showed “marked stenosis . . . on the right L5-

S1 foramen,” and a CT scan demonstrating “severe bilateral facet arthrosis

. . . and degenerative dis[c]” at L5-S1. Dr. Winer testified that the claimant’s 

pre-existing, asymptomatic arachnoiditis was not the cause of his ongoing 

symptoms. Finally, Dr. Winer opined that the claimant was not medically 

stationary and required ongoing active medical treatment.

¶18 In contrast, Dr. Dohring offered a medical opinion as to 

causation that was essentially identical to that previously offered by Dr. 

Beghin, and which had been explicitly rejected by ALJ Retzer. Dr. Dohring 

testified the industrial injury exacerbated the claimant’s pre-existing 

arachnoiditis within the cauda equina behind his 1999 L4 burst fracture, and 

his back and buttock pain were likely the result of a lumbar musculoligamentous, or soft tissue, strain. According to the doctor’s review of the 

imaging studies, the claimant had no instability or degeneration at L5-S1 

that would require a fusion, and the foraminal stenosis at L5-S1 was only 

on the left side, and did not explain the claimant’s subjective right-sided 

symptoms. Dr. Dohring testified the claimant’s diagnostic tests did not 

indicate he would benefit from an SI joint fusion; that there was no effective 

surgical treatment for arachnoiditis; that the claimant’s medical condition 

was stationary; and that it was appropriate to close the case for active 

medical treatment, assign a percentage of permanent impairment, and 

move to the loss of earning capacity phase of the case. Contrary to the 

earlier decision of ALJ Retzer, who accepted the opinion of Dr. Winer and 

rejected that of Dr. Beghin, ALJ Radke resolved the same medical conflict,

this time in favor of Dr. Dohring’s opinion and contrary to that of Dr. Winer.

 

7 In January 2015, Dr. Winer reported he had previously performed 

“an SI joint injection on the right, and this did provide significant shortterm improvement.”
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

9

Application of Facts to Preclusion Law

¶19 On appeal, the claimant argues ALJ Radke’s award was 

erroneous as a matter of law because when ALJ Retzer adopted Dr. Winer’s 

opinion in the December 2013 award—which became final without 

protest—the Industrial Commission necessarily determined the claimant’s 

industrial injury had caused an “aggravation of the [claimant’s] preexisting facet arthrosis and his S/I joint arthrosis and his L2-L5 fusion with 

radiculopathy.” In resolving the medical conflict in favor of Dr. Winer, ALJ 

Retzer rejected Dr. Beghin’s competing opinion that the industrial injury 

caused only a strain/sprain, soft tissue injury to the claimant’s low back,

allowing his pre-existing asymptomatic arachnoiditis at L4 to become 

temporarily symptomatic. Because Dr. Dohring in 2015 was offering

essentially the same causation opinion as Dr. Beghin in 2013, it should have 

been rejected on preclusion grounds.

¶20 The claimant relies on Perry v. Industrial Commission, 154 Ariz. 

226, 741 P.2d 693 (App. 1987), to support his position. In Perry, a Phoenix 

Suns basketball player sustained a compensable industrial back injury. Id.

at 227, 741 P.2d at 694. His claim was closed based on an IME that 

concluded he had sustained only a lumbar strain. Id. Perry protested, and 

at the ICA hearing, his doctor opined that Perry sustained an acute stress 

fracture of the pars interarticularis that had caused symptomatic 

spondylolisthesis.8 Perry, 154 Ariz. at 227, 741 P.2d at 694. In contrast, the

IME doctor testified that Perry only sustained a soft tissue sprain injury, 

and the ALJ adopted his opinion. Id. at 227-28, 741 P.2d at 694-95.

¶21 Six years after the award became final, Perry filed a petition 

to reopen, alleging his spondylolisthesis had caused degeneration of the 

disc space and required active treatment. Id. at 228, 741 P.2d at 695. The 

petition was denied for benefits, and following ICA hearings, the ALJ

concluded that the nature of the claimant’s industrial injury was 

determined to be soft tissue at the initial hearings and did not include 

spondylolisthesis. Id. On appeal, this court affirmed the ALJ’s application 

of claim preclusion, recognizing that “the new evidence of additional 

degeneration is inconclusive; it merely generates the same conflict 

concerning etiology.” Id. at 231, 741 P.2d at 698.

 

8 “Spondylolisthesis” is sometimes inaccurately referred to as a 

“slipped disc,” but is actually the forward displacement of a vertebra, 

which is a bony abnormality, not a soft tissue injury. See Dorland’s at 1458.
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

10

¶22 Respondents do not address the applicability of Perry; 

instead, they rely on Aguayo v. Industrial Commission. In Aguayo, the 

claimant sustained an industrial back injury in 1990 and underwent two 

surgeries for an L4-L5 disc herniation. 235 Ariz. at 414, ¶ 3, 333 P.3d at 32. 

He eventually became stationary with a permanent impairment and work 

restrictions, but returned to regular work. Id. The claimant performed his 

regular work until he sustained a new industrial back injury in May 2010. 

Id. at ¶ 4. His claim was accepted for benefits and then closed following an 

IME. Id. The claimant protested, and following ICA hearings in 2011, an

ALJ found the 2010 injury was not stationary and awarded continuing 

medical benefits. Id. at 414-15, ¶¶ 4-5, 333 P.3d at 32-33.

¶23 The claimant in Aguayo continued to receive conservative 

treatment until December 2011, when he declined additional treatment. Id.

at 415, ¶ 6, 333 P.3d at 33. After a repeat IME, his claim was closed as 

medically stationary with no additional impairment. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. The 

claimant protested, but after hearings in 2012 that resulted in a 2013 award, 

the ALJ adopted the IME doctor’s opinion that the claimant sustained a 

temporary exacerbation of his pre-existing back condition that resolved 

without additional impairment. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. On appeal, the claimant 

argued that the 2011 award precluded the ALJ from adopting the IME 

doctor’s opinion in the 2013 award. Id. at 418, ¶ 19, 333 P.3d at 36. We 

disagreed and found that the issue resolved in the 2011 award was whether 

the claimant’s 2010 back injury was medically stationary. Id. at 417-18, 

¶¶ 18-20, 333 P.3d at 35-36. Because the 2010 aggravation of the claimant’s 

pre-existing back condition was not stationary, no decision as to any 

permanent impairment was made at that time. Id.

¶24 In this case, we find the facts and legal principles in Perry

more applicable. In the first round of closure hearings in Perry, the ALJ had 

to decide what type of injuries the claimant had sustained as a result of the 

industrial injury. 154 Ariz. at 227-28, 741 P.2d at 694-95. The ALJ resolved 

the medical conflict in favor of the IME doctor’s opinion that the industrial 

episode caused only a soft tissue injury. Id. When the claimant later 

attempted to reopen his claim for treatment of spondylolisthesis—

previously found to be non-compensable in the prior hearings—he was 

found to be precluded from doing so by the prior award. Id. at 228, 741 P.2d 

at 695. In Aguayo, there was no dispute in the first round of closure hearings 

as to the type of injury the claimant sustained in the industrial incident, i.e., 

an aggravation of a pre-existing L4-L5 back injury. 235 Ariz. at 414, ¶¶ 3-4, 
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

11

333 P.3d at 32. The only issue was whether that aggravation was stationary 

or required additional medical treatment. Id. at 415, ¶ 10, 333 P.3d at 33.

¶25 In the instant case, the ALJ found in the 2013 award that the 

claimant sustained several different injuries caused by the industrial 

accident, including injury to the SI joint and aggravation of the pre-existing 

facet arthrosis and L2-L5 fusion with resulting radiculopathy, none of 

which were medically stationary at that time. In reaching this conclusion, 

ALJ Retzer rejected the competing opinion of Dr. Beghin that the claimant 

sustained only a soft tissue injury that had only temporarily exacerbated his

pre-existing 1999 back injury—the very issue later reasserted by Dr. 

Dohring to ALJ Radke, who accepted that opinion in 2015.

¶26 By the time of the 2015 hearings, however, the claimant’s 

underlying pathology resulting in symptoms and physical findings had not

changed. The causal connection between those conditions, symptoms, and 

findings and the industrial event had already been specifically and finally 

determined. As such, the only issue to be resolved in 2015 was whether 

those conditions—already determined to be caused or exacerbated by the 

industrial injury—were now medically stationary. Although purporting to 

address that issue, Dr. Dohring instead opined—and ALJ Radke found—

that the underlying pathology and medical conditions were not causally 

related to the industrial injury.

¶27 In our view of the record, Dr. Dohring’s causation opinion 

was foreclosed by the final ICA award issued in 2013. ALJ Radke erred in 

not giving ALJ Retzer’s findings the preclusive effect required.

9

 

9 By this decision, we do not intend to comment on or resolve the 

question of whether any surgery, if ultimately recommended by Dr. Winer

or any other surgeon, is medically indicated.
MILLER v. ICA/SUN DEVIL

Opinion of the Court

12

III. CONCLUSION

¶28 For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the 2015 award.