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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND 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

MACARIO A. JIMENEZ, Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

ERICKSON CONSTRUCTION CO., Respondent Employer, 

INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NA/CONSTITUTION STATE SVC, 

Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 14-0015

Special Action – Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20123-140250; Carrier Claim No. 127CBEPE7030R

The Honorable Michael A. Mosesso, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Macario A. Jimenez, Phoenix

Petitioner In Propria Persona

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Andrew F. Wade

Counsel for Respondent ICA
2

Lester & Norton P.C., Phoenix

By Rachel Parise Brozina

Counsel for Respondent Employer/Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

H O W E, Judge:

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

Arizona (“ICA”) award and decision upon review for a non-compensable 

claim. Macario Jimenez argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) 

erred in finding that he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for not 

forthwith reporting his accident and injury, and thus, he failed to establish 

a compensable claim. Finding no error, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 October 12, 2012, Jimenez was working on a roof as part of his 

job for Erickson Construction. While on top of the roof, he slipped and fell. 

Jimenez did not think he was injured, so he did not tell anyone at work. A 

few days later, Jimenez woke up with back pain and went to the hospital as 

a result. He complained to the emergency room (“ER”) doctor of pain 

“upon waking up this morning,” but denied “any recent trauma or 

exertion.” The doctor gave him medication and put him on light duty at 

work. Jimenez gave the doctor’s note to his supervisor, Richard Dawson, 

but he did not mention the accident. Jimenez returned to the ER on October 

21, as well as saw his family doctor on October 22 and 24, and November 2 

for back pain. 

¶3 On November 5, Jimenez met with Moisey Prewitt, Erickson’s 

safety coordinator, and other Erickson employees to discuss his accident.

Jimenez told Prewitt that he was having back problems and that it might 

have been caused by a work-related injury. Prewitt investigated the claim. 

He asked Jimenez’s crewmates, foreman, and superintendent questions 

about the claim. None had knowledge that Jimenez injured himself that 

week and wrote statements reflecting their lack of knowledge. 
JIMENEZ v. ERICKSON/INDEMNITY

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 On November 7, Jimenez reported his October 12 accident to 

the ICA. The ALJ heard testimony from Jimenez, Prewitt, and other 

Erickson employees, as well as Doctors Tristan Pico and Zoran Maric. 

Jimenez’s crewmate testified that he did not see Jimenez fall or get hurt on 

October 12. He also testified that Jimenez never indicated that he was 

having difficulty working, complained of back pain, or asked for help with 

his work. Dawson testified that Jimenez never reported any work-place 

injury to him and that the only physical problem Jimenez mentioned to him 

was gout. When asked about the doctor’s note, Dawson denied having 

received it. Jimenez’s field superintendent testified that Jimenez brought 

him a doctor’s note regarding his gout, but not one for back pain. He also 

stated that Jimenez never reported any injury to him and no one from the 

company has told him that he or she saw Jimenez slip and fall or injured 

his back. 

¶5 Dr. Pico, a board certified anesthesiologist and pain 

management specialist, testified that he evaluated Jimenez on November 6.

After examining Jimenez, Dr. Pico’s working diagnosis was lumbar 

radiculitis, lumbar facet arthrosis, and sacroiliitis. The doctor prescribed 

epidural injections and pain medicine. Dr. Pico opined that although

Jimenez’s medical records did not mention any work-related injuries, his 

accident could have caused his back pain, but that was dependent on

Jimenez’s reliability as a historian. 

¶6 Dr. Maric, a board certified orthopedic spine surgeon, 

testified that he examined Jimenez on March 27, 2013. He reviewed 

Jimenez’s medical records, including several MRI reports. After examining 

Jimenez, Dr. Maric made no objective orthopedic or neurologic findings. 

He testified that it was “imperative that we correlate the patient’s 

complaints with the MRI scan findings. In this case, there’s clearly no 

correlation.” He also testified that the history Jimenez gave to the ER doctor 

on October 14 contradicted the history Jimenez gave to him. Dr. Maric 

opined that no relationship existed between Jimenez’s back pain and the 

accident. 

¶7 The ALJ ordered that Jimenez “take nothing” from Erickson 

and the insurance carrier. The ALJ found that between Dr. Pico’s and Dr. 

Maric’s opinions, it adopted Dr. Maric’s opinion as “being most probably 

correct.” It noted that Jimenez “denied trauma and provided no history of 

the work injury to the emergency room, but described a history of waking 

up two days after the injury with pain and no intervening pain.” The ALJ 

also found that Jimenez failed “to forthwith report” his injury and did not 

provide information to Erickson until November 5, which “caused a delay 
JIMENEZ v. ERICKSON/INDEMNITY

Decision of the Court

4

for defendants to investigate this injury, thus prejudicing defendants.”

Moreover, Jimenez failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the failure to 

forthwith report his injury. Consequently, Jimenez failed to establish a 

compensable claim. Jimenez filed a request for review, but the ALJ 

affirmed. This petition for review followed. 

DISCUSSION

¶8 Jimenez argues that the ALJ erred in finding that he failed to 

establish a reasonable excuse for not forthwith reporting his accident and 

thus did not establish a compensable claim. 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 sustain an award 

if it is reasonably supported by the evidence, Lawson v. Indus. Comm’n, 12 

Ariz. App. 546, 547, 473 P.2d 471, 472 (1970), which is considered in a light 

most favorable to upholding the award, Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 

102, 105 ¶ 16, 41 P.3d 640, 643 (App. 2002). Because the ALJ’s findings are 

reasonably supported by the record, the ALJ did not err.

¶9 An employee who suffers an accident must report the 

accident and injury resulting therefrom to the employer “forthwith.” A.R.S. 

§ 23–908(E). If the employee fails to comply with this requirement, then “no 

compensation shall be paid for the injury claimed to have resulted from the 

accident.” Id. § 23–908(F). The ALJ may relieve the employee of this sanction 

“if it believes after investigation that the circumstances attending the failure 

. . . are such as to have excused” the failure to forthwith report. Id. § 23–

908(E). The employee has the burden to prove facts that establish an excuse 

for his or her failure to forthwith report, and the absence of prejudice to the 

employer is but one factor in establishing a justifiable excuse. Pacific Fruit 

Express v. Indus. Comm’n, 153 Ariz. 210, 215, 735 P.2d 820, 825 (1987). 

¶10 Here, the ALJ found that Jimenez did not provide information 

to Erickson about the October 12 accident until November 5—nearly a 

month later. Jimenez testified that he did not tell anyone at work that he 

had an accident because he did not think he was injured. Erickson 

employees correspondingly testified that none of them witnessed Jimenez

hurting himself or having any trouble working. Jimenez also testified that 

when he gave the doctor’s note to his supervisor, he did not mention the 

accident. Moreover, between October 12 and November 5, Jimenez visited 

the ER twice and his physician three times for back pain, but none of the 

records from these visits mentioned a work-related injury. Instead, on his 

first visit to the hospital—two days after his accident—Jimenez told the ER 

doctor that the onset of his back pain was upon waking up that morning.
JIMENEZ v. ERICKSON/INDEMNITY

Decision of the Court

5

More importantly, he denied suffering any recent trauma or exertion.

Therefore, the circumstances attending Jimenez’s failure to forthwith report

do not excuse his failure to forthwith report. 

¶11 Although the parties presented conflicting medical evidence, 

the ALJ was responsible for “resolv[ing] all conflicts in the evidence, 

especially when the conflicts involve expert medical testimony.” Post v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 4, 8, 770 P.2d 308, 312 (1989). This Court will not 

disturb the ALJ’s resolution unless it is wholly unreasonable. Hackworth v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 229 Ariz. 339, 343 ¶ 9, 275 P.3d 638, 642 (App. 2012). The ALJ 

resolved the medical conflict by adopting the opinion of Dr. Maric because 

it was consistent with Jimenez’s statement denying recent trauma and with 

the fact that the medical records available to it included no history of a 

work-related injury. Thus, based on all the evidence, the ALJ concluded that 

Jimenez failed to establish by a reasonable preponderance any excuse for 

having failed to forthwith report the industrial episode and therefore failed 

to establish a compensable claim. Consequently, because the ALJ’s 

resolution of the medical conflict was not wholly unreasonable and the 

award was reasonably supported by evidence, we cannot find that the ALJ 

erred.

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.