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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CEDRIC WELLS, Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Respondent Employer,

PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 15-0085

Special Action – Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20011-420262

Carrier Claim No. WC 302001001431

The Honorable Michael A. Mosesso, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Cedric Wells, Holbrook

Petitioner
2

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Andrew F. Wade

Counsel for Respondent

Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont & Slavin, Phoenix

By Lisa M. La Mont

Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe 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 Hearing and Findings and Award 

Reopening Claim (“Decision”). We review the record to determine whether 

the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred when he found that petitioner 

employee Cedric Wells (“Claimant”) did not suffer the additional injury of

blood poisoning. Additionally, Claimant has requested that this court 

reopen the claim due to new medical records. Because we find that the 

record reasonably supports the ALJ’s finding, we affirm the decision. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On April 19, 2001, Claimant was employed by Arizona Public 

Service (“APS”) at the Cholla Power Plant. Claimant was instructed to burn 

a barrel labeled “used oil” and was wearing only safety goggles for 

protection. During the burn, Claimant was exposed to high temperatures 

and believes he was actually burning chemicals, not oil. Claimant suffered 

burns to his face which were not treated for thirty-one days. Claimant 

reported the incident to his employer and filed a workers’ compensation 

claim. He received benefits and the claim was closed July 9, 2001. Claimant 

also believes that he was exposed to heavy metals during the burn, causing

numerous other ailments that were not initially diagnosed, or diagnosable.

¶3 Claimant previously filed two requests to reopen the case,

each of which was denied and for each of which Claimant did not request 

a hearing for review. On November 6, 2014, Claimant filed another request 
WELLS v. APS/PINNACLE WEST

Decision of the Court

3

to reopen the claim, listing post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and 

spinal stenosis as the reason. Claimant included medical records regarding 

the hyperpigmentation from Dr. Knutson but did not include any records 

regarding the spinal stenosis. The claim was denied and claimant 

requested a hearing to review the decision. 

¶4 On February 3, 2015, Claimant had an independent medical 

exam performed by Dr. Selma Targovnik, a board certified dermatologist.

Dr. Targovnik was provided with records of lab tests from April 2002 

through September 2005. Dr. Targovnik found that Claimant suffered from 

post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation of the skin, causing some 

disfigurement to the face. Dr. Targovnik also believed that claimant should 

get a rating of eleven percent for a permanent facial disfigurement. 

¶5 On March 24, 2015, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation

(“Respondent Carrier”) issued a notice accepting the reopening for 

determination of permanent facial disfigurement, a notice of permanent 

disability, and requested a determination of benefits regarding facial 

disfigurement. However, Claimant still wished to have a hearing to discuss 

additional health issues Claimant believed were related to the initial injury. 

¶6 Formal hearings were held on May 5, 2015, and July 14, 2015. 

At the July 14 hearing, Dr. Targovnik testified as to her findings from the 

February 2, 2015 examination and her review of the 2002-2005 lab tests. Dr. 

Targovnik was questioned about Claimant’s possible exposure to poisons

and testified she did not find any significant abnormalities and nothing in 

the records provided specifically related to the skin. She also testified, 

however, that blood poisoning and heavy metals were not her area of 

expertise.

¶7 On September 2, 2015, the ALJ issued his Decision. The ALJ 

ordered that the claim be reopened as of November 6, 2014, and awarded 

Claimant medical and surgical benefits from November 6, 2014 through 

May 4, 2015, and temporary total or temporary partial disability 

compensation benefits from November 6, 2014 through May 4, 2015. 

Additionally, the ALJ found Claimant was entitled to benefits pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 23-1044 for a scheduled 

permanent partial disability to be determined by the Industrial 

Commission Claims Division through its administrative process regarding 

facial disfigurement. 

¶8 Claimant accepted the awards for the facial injury and 

disfigurement but filed a request for review and provided the ALJ with 
WELLS v. APS/PINNACLE WEST

Decision of the Court

4

medical records from a September 9, 2015 medical appointment. The ALJ 

affirmed his decision. Claimant timely appealed. This court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(2) (2016), 23-951(A) (2012), 

and Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10. 

DISCUSSION

¶9 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 (App. 2003) (citation omitted). We consider 

the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the ALJ’s award. 

Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002) (citation 

omitted), and we review the evidence only to determine if substantial 

evidence supported the findings, Associated Grocers v. Indus. Comm’n, 133 

Ariz. 421, 423-24 (App. 1982) (citation omitted). We must affirm an award 

if any reasonable theory of evidence can support it. Carousel Snack Bar v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 156 Ariz. 43, 46 (1988) (citation omitted). Our review is 

limited to “determining whether or not the commission acted without or in 

excess of its power and, if findings of fact were made, whether or not such 

findings of fact support the award, order or decision.” A.R.S. § 23-951(B)

(2016). 

¶10 To reopen a workers’ compensation claim, the claimant must 

establish the existence of a new, additional, or previously undiscovered 

condition, and a causal relationship between that condition and the prior 

industrial injury. See A.R.S. § 23-1061(H) (2015); see also Pascucci v. Indus. 

Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 442, 444 (App. 1980) (citation omitted). The claimant has 

the burden to present sufficient evidence to support reopening. Hopkins v. 

Indus. Comm’n, 176 Ariz. 173, 176 (App. 1993) (citation omitted). When the 

causal connection between the condition and the prior industrial injury is 

not readily apparent, it must be established by expert medical testimony. 

Eldorado Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 27 Ariz. App. 667, 670 (1976) (citations 

omitted); Makinson v. Indus. Comm’n, 134 Ariz. 246, 248 (App. 1982) (citation 

omitted).

¶11 Claimant believes that he was exposed to hazardous 

chemicals when he sustained the industrial injury on April 19, 2001, and as 

a result has heavy metals in his blood. Although he provided the ALJ with 

lab tests performed between 2002 and 2005, he did not provide the ALJ a 

medical professional to interpret the tests. Dr. Targovnik was the only 

medical professional to testify, and she reported that she did not find 

significant abnormalities in the lab tests, nor did she find a relationship 

between the lab records and Claimant’s other conditions. 
WELLS v. APS/PINNACLE WEST

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 Based on the testimony and records provided by Dr. 

Targovnik, the ALJ found that the claim should be reopened for a 

permanent impairment rating and supportive care for the facial 

disfigurement only. We do not find that the ALJ abused his discretion in 

his award to Claimant. 

¶13 Claimant submitted with his request for review additional 

medical records for the ALJ to consider, and again submitted with his 

opening brief copies of medical records dated after the ALJ issued his 

decision. However, the fact-finding process in workers’ compensation 

proceedings ends at the conclusion of the last scheduled hearing. Sw.

Nurseries v. Indus. Comm’n, 133 Ariz. 171, 174 (App. 1982) (citation omitted).

Additionally, any records not considered by the ALJ below are not properly 

part of the certified record on appeal, and this court will not consider 

documents on appeal that are not part of the certified record.1 See, e.g., Wood 

v. Indus. Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 259, 261-62 (App. 1980); Shockey v. Indus. 

Comm’n, 140 Ariz. 113, 116 n.1 (App. 1983). 

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the ALJ’s Decision. 

 

1 Although this court will not consider the new medical records, this 

should not be construed to mean that Claimant cannot request a reopening 

of the claim with ICA if he believes a new, additional, or previously 

undiscovered condition exists, and there is a causal relationship between 

that condition and the prior industrial injury. See A.R.S. § 23-1061(H) (2015).