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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

FRANCES GOETZINGER-AMENDT,

Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA,

Respondent,

BOARD OF NURSING CARE EXAM*,**

Respondent Employer,

THE STATE OF ARIZONA – DOA RISK MANAGEMENT*,**

Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 18-0031

Special Action – Industrial Commission

ICA Claim Nos.

20011-830742*

 20012-220932**

Carrier Claim Nos.

2001030850*

2001030330**

Gaetano J. Testini, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD AFFIRMED

FILED 2-26-2019
2

COUNSEL

Frances Goetzinger-Amendt, Surprise

Petitioner

The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Stacey Ann Rogan

Counsel for Respondent

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Charles W. Ferris, Jr.

Counsel for Respondent Employer and Respondent Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Frances Rose Goetzinger-Amendt (“Claimant”), a former 

employee of the State of Arizona (“Employer”), appeals the denial of two 

separate notices—one terminating her unemployment claims, and the other 

denying her petition to reopen her claims. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Claimant suffered two separate work-related injuries in 

March and July of 2001, respectively. She filed workers’ compensation 

claims for both, and the Arizona Department of Administration Risk 

Management Division (the “Carrier”) accepted both and paid benefits. On 

November 13, 2001, the Carrier issued a Notice of Claim Status (“Notice”) 

closing the March 2001 claim without any permanent impairment. On 

November 12, 2002, the Carrier issued a Notice closing Claimant’s July 2001 

claim without any permanent impairment, supported by a group 

consultation report and an Addendum Report by Drs. Brian Borland and

Michael Epstein, a psychiatric evaluation report from Dr. Robert Bevan, and 

a written progress note from Dr. Kevin Ladin. In December 2002, Claimant 

filed a petition to reopen the claim from the March 2001 injury; the Carrier 

denied her request in a January 15, 2003 Notice.
GOETZINGER-AMENDT v. BRD OF NURSING

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 Claimant requested a hearing before the Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”) and appeared with representation for her first hearing before 

the ALJ in August 2003. Before further hearings were set, however, 

Claimant reached a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) with the 

Carrier and withdrew her hearing requests. In October 2003, the ALJ issued 

a decision finding, inter alia, the existence of a bona fide dispute, and that 

“[n]o duress, fraud, misrepresentations, coercion, and/or undisclosed 

additional agreements [were] used to achieve settlement.” Accordingly, in

2003 the ALJ issued an award approving the Compromise and Settlement.

¶4 In April 2017—some thirteen years after the Settlement—

Claimant filed a complaint with the Industrial Commission (“IC”) alleging 

the Carrier had engaged in bad faith and/or unfair claims processing of the 

2001 claims under Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R20-5-163 (the 

“Regulation”). Specifically, Claimant alleged that the November 12, 2002 

Notice closing her claim and the January 15, 2003 Notice denying her 

petition to reopen violated the Regulation because such notices lacked 

supportive medical documentation.

¶5 A hearing was held before an ALJ in January 2018, after which 

the ALJ issued a decision denying the claims. The ALJ found that the 

November 2002 notice was adequately supported by medical evidence, and 

that the Regulation did not require the Notice denying the petition to 

reopen to be supported by medical documentation. Claimant requested an 

additional hearing which the IC treated as a “Request for Review,” and the 

IC summarily affirmed the ALJ’s denial.

¶6 Claimant filed a special action for review with this Court. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 23-948.

DISCUSSION

¶7 On appeal from the IC, when a case presents mixed questions 

of law and fact, as in this matter, “we defer to the ALJ’s determination of 

disputed facts but review questions of law de novo.” Tapia v. Indus. Comm’n, 

245 Ariz. 258, 260, ¶ 5 (App. 2018); see also Phelps v. Indus. Comm’n, 155 Ariz. 

501, 506 (1987) (stating we will not overturn the ALJ’s findings and 

conclusions unless they cannot be supported on any reasonable theory of 

the evidence).
GOETZINGER-AMENDT v. BRD OF NURSING

Decision of the Court

4

I. Sufficiency of Claimant’s Brief

¶8 Employer and the Carrier (“Respondents”) urge us to find 

that Claimant has waived all arguments on appeal. We require petitioners 

on appeal to submit briefs with citations to the record, developed 

arguments, and references to the legal authority forming the basis of those 

arguments. See ARCAP 13(a); AMERCO v. Shoen, 184 Ariz. 150, 154 n.4 

(App. 1995) (stating failure to develop argument or present supporting 

authority on appeal waives issue). To be sure, Claimant’s briefs are 

deficient. Nowhere does she cite to the record and only sparingly does she 

cite to legal authority. Most concerning, however, is the lack of a developed 

argument in the opening brief.

¶9 Although this case could properly be dismissed on the basis 

of waiver, it is the general preference of Arizona’s appellate courts to 

resolve cases on their merits. See, e.g., Hill v. City of Phoenix, 193 Ariz. 570, 

574, ¶ 18 (1999). This case dates back nearly two decades; accordingly, in 

the interest of affording Claimant some finality, we exercise our discretion 

to address the merits of this case. See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 

573, ¶ 23 (2009) (stating that a finding of waiver “is procedural, not 

substantive, and may be suspended in our discretion”) (internal quotations 

and citation omitted).

¶10 That notwithstanding, we decline to address all complaints 

merely alluded to but not developed in Claimant’s brief, including any 

alleged “illegal” refusal to provide medical records, the ALJ’s denial of her 

requests to subpoena certain medical professionals, alleged negligent 

handling of HIPAA information, and other miscellaneous complaints.

II. Bad Faith and Insufficiency of Medical Evidence

¶11 Claimant asserts that Respondents acted in bad faith and 

engaged in unfair claims processing in each of her claims. More 

specifically, Claimant alleges her claims were closed without adequate 

medical documentation and without proper justification, and that she was 

improperly denied the ability to reopen them.

A. The Settlement Is an Absolute Defense to Issues Covered by 

the Subject Notices

¶12 Respondents argued before the ALJ that the Settlement is a 

“global defense” to, and is dispositive of, this matter. Under the terms of 

the Settlement, Claimant acknowledged that her medical condition (for the 

purposes of workers’ compensation claims) was stationary and required no 
GOETZINGER-AMENDT v. BRD OF NURSING

Decision of the Court

5

active medical treatment; that she sustained no residual impairment as a 

result of the subject industrial episode(s); and she expressly agreed to 

withdraw her hearing requests. Claimant was represented by counsel 

when she entered the Settlement Agreement and formally waived all 

workers’ compensation claims arising out of these work-related injuries in 

exchange for a one-time $15,000 payment. As previously noted, the 

Settlement Agreement was reviewed, accepted, and approved by the ALJ. 

The approval of the Settlement agreement was not timely challenged and 

became final. See A.R.S. §§ 23-942(D), 23-943(A), (B) (providing that any 

party dissatisfied with the award may file a request for review with the ALJ 

of the IC within thirty days after the mailing of the award; otherwise the 

award becomes final). As such, claims arising out of the November 2002

and January 2003 Notices are precluded.

B. Whether the Notices of Claim Status Terminating Claim and 

Denying Claimant’s Request to Reopen Violated A.A.C. 

R20-5-163

¶13 Claimant argues the Regulation was violated when (1) the 

Carrier terminated her treatment in a Notice dated November 12, 2002; and 

(2) the Carrier denied her application to reopen in a Notice dated January 

15, 2003. Subsection (A) of the Regulation outlines the activities 

constituting “bad faith” on behalf of an employer or carrier. As best we can 

tell from the record, Claimant alleges that the Carrier and/or Employer 

engaged in bad faith when they failed to acknowledge her communications 

in violation of subsection (A)(2); falsified documents in violation of 

subsection (A)(2); unreasonably delayed payment of benefits in violation of 

subsection (A)(2); and unreasonably terminated her benefits in violation of 

subsection (A)(4). Regarding Claimant’s subsection (B) arguments, she 

alleges that each of the Notices were issued without adequate supporting 

medical records.

¶14 During the January 10, 2018 hearing before the ALJ, the ALJ 

pointed out to Claimant that “a mere accusation without any evidence isn’t 

enough to carry your burden.” On review of the record, we agree with the 

ALJ’s implicit conclusion that Claimant’s allegations are unsupported by 

evidence. First, Claimant provides no evidence she has been denied 

communication concerning, or access to documentation concerning, her 

medical condition or the status of her industrial claims. In fact, Claimant 

has gathered over 1,700 pages of medical records, administrative records, 

and communications in pursuing her claims. Next, Claimant failed to 

identify any evidence to support her allegation of falsified records, nor do 

we find any evidence of delayed payments. Finally, the Carrier did not 
GOETZINGER-AMENDT v. BRD OF NURSING

Decision of the Court

6

unreasonably terminate Claimant’s benefits because, as specifically 

outlined in the following paragraphs of this decision, such termination was 

adequately supported by medical documentation.

¶15 Finally, the record belies Claimant’s subsection (B) claims. 

The 2002 Notice, as a notice terminating benefits, required the Carrier to 

submit supporting medical documentation pursuant to A.A.C. 

R20-5-118(B)(1) and (2). In support of its notice, the Carrier attached 

multiple medical reports as follows:

1. Drs. Borland and Epstein each signed a report concluding 

that “[t]here are no objective findings to support 

[Claimant’s] complaints. . . . [Claimant] has [no] 

neurological or TMJ injury or diagnosis attributable to the 

injury in question. . . . We do not feel that supportive care 

is warranted . . . . [and] she is permanent and stationary.”

2. Dr. Bevan issued a psychiatric report stating that 

Claimant’s “psychiatric status is stationary.”

3. Dr. Ladin submitted a report wherein he opined that 

Claimant’s “condition from a physical medicine and 

rehabilitation perspective is medically stationary”—he 

further stated that he discharged her and would be 

scheduling no follow-up.

Claimant concedes she received the November 2002 Notice but denies she

received the attached reports—a denial the ALJ did not find supported by 

the evidence. In any event, the record demonstrates that the Carrier’s 2002 

Notice complied with the Regulation.

¶16 Unlike the 2002 Notice, the 2003 Notice was not to terminate

benefits, but instead was issued in response to Claimant’s petition to 

reopen. In such an instance, the claimant is required to submit medical 

documentation to support her petition to reopen; contrary to Claimant’s 

contention, the carrier is not required to submit any medical documentation 

when denying the petition. See A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) and (I); A.A.C. 

R20-5-133(B). Accordingly, the Carrier did not violate the Regulation when 

it issued its 2003 Notice.
GOETZINGER-AMENDT v. BRD OF NURSING

Decision of the Court

7

CONCLUSION

¶17 Finding no error, we affirm.