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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MATTHEW GOMEZ, Petitioner Employee, 

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

QUIKTRIP DBA, QUIK TRIP, Respondent Employer, 

QUIKTRIP CORPORATION, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 22-0047 

Special Action - Industrial Commission

ICA Claim No. 20211740003 

Carrier Claim No. 20-41007 

The Honorable Michelle Bodi, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Thomas C. Wilmer PC, Phoenix

By Thomas C. Wilmer

Counsel for Petitioner Employee 

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix

By Afshan Peimani

Counsel for Respondent

FILED 10-19-2023
2

Lundmark Barberich La Mont & Slavin PC, Phoenix

By R. Todd Lundmark, David T. Lundmark

Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurance Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

G A S S, Chief Judge:

¶1 While working as a clerk in a QuikTrip convenience store, 

Matthew Gomez suddenly fainted and fell to the ground. As he fell, he 

struck the back of his head on a hard stone floor, suffered a seizure, and 

developed a seizure disorder. He concedes his employment did not cause 

him to faint. Even so, he argues his claim is compensable because the store 

equipment he fell into caused him to fall backwards, causing him to 

develop a seizure disorder. The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) 

rejected his argument. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 While working his regular shift at QuikTrip, Gomez fainted 

when he was standing near a soda fountain and cabinetry. He lost 

consciousness and collapsed, hitting the soda fountain and cabinetry and 

landing on his back. The back of his head hit the stone floor hard. He 

suffered a traumatic brain injury and developed a posttraumatic seizure 

disorder. The two neurologists who examined Gomez agreed Gomez 

developed the seizure disorder because the back of his head struck the floor 

when, for no reason attributable to his employment, he fainted. Gomez 

argues his employment caused his injury because the soda fountain and 

cabinetry caused him to fall backwards. He filed a claim for workers’ 

compensation, which QuikTrip, a self-insured employer, denied.

¶3 An ICA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard the case.

Gomez argued that but for the presence and placement of the soda fountain

and cabinetry, he would have fallen forward and not hit the back of his 

head. The ALJ characterized Gomez’s argument as “pure conjecture,” and 

concluded the soda fountain and cabinetry did not contribute to Gomez’s 

injury in any significant way. The ICA denied compensability. After 

administrative review affirmed the decision, Gomez filed this statutory 
GOMEZ v. QUIKTRIP/QUIKTRIP CO

Decision of the Court

3

special action. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, § 9, Constitution 

of Arizona, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.B, 23-951, 23-943.H, and Rule 10, 

Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.

ANALYSIS

¶4 The elements of compensability are (1) an injury (2) by 

accident (3) “arising out of and in the course of employment.” A.R.S. 

§ 23-1041.A. “Arising out of” refers to the origin or cause of the injury, and 

“in the course of” refers to the accident’s time, place, and circumstances in 

relation to the employment. Pac. Fruit Express Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 32 Ariz. 

299, 303–04 (1927). The claimant bears the burden of proving the 

compensability elements. Keovorabouth v. Indus. Comm’n, 222 Ariz. 378, 380–

81 ¶ 7 (App. 2009).

¶5 The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. And the medical 

expert opinions do not differ on the cause of Gomez’s injury. Gomez was in 

the course of his employment at all relevant times. He suffered an 

idiopathic event (syncope) in which he lost consciousness at work: he 

fainted. He fell to the ground and hit the back of his head with enough force 

to cause a seizure disorder. The blow to his head, not the fall, caused the 

seizure disorder.

¶6 But the parties disagree about whether the circumstances of 

Gomez’s employment—specifically the soda fountain and cabinetry—

created a greater risk than those risks commonly present when a person 

passes out and falls to the ground.

¶7 Generally, injuries from falls caused by idiopathic conditions 

(conditions personal to the worker) are not compensable, even if they occur 

during employment. Valerio v. Indus. Comm’n, 85 Ariz. 189, 192 (1959). But 

if the employment increases the risk to the worker, an injury from an 

idiopathic fall can be compensable. See PMC Powdered Metals Corp. v. Indus. 

Comm’n, 15 Ariz. App. 460, 463–64 (1971) (concluding idiopathic fall from 

ladder was compensable). The hardness of a floor has been held not to

constitute a greater risk to the injured worker who falls on it: “The mere 

furnishing of a floor, however hard, does not, in our opinion, create a 

greater . . . risk from the hazards to which all [people are] daily exposed.”

Valerio, 85 Ariz. at 192.

¶8 Gomez argues the soda fountain and cabinetry increased the 

risk because it redirected his fall, causing him to strike the back of his head.

The ALJ found to the contrary in favor of QuikTrip. This court defers to the 

factual findings of the ALJ. Young v. Indus. Comm’n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270 ¶ 14 
GOMEZ v. QUIKTRIP/QUIKTRIP CO

Decision of the Court

4

(App. 2003). It will not disturb the ALJ’s findings unless they are clearly 

erroneous, which they are not if supported by substantial evidence. See 

Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48, 51–52 ¶ 11 (App. 2009) Ample 

evidence supports the ALJ’s resolution of facts here. Gomez argues the 

presence of the soda fountain and cabinetry increased the risk of injury. At 

oral argument, Gomez’s counsel referred to security-camera video of the 

fall and emphasized it as supportive of this position. Though the video was 

part of the ICA hearing record, it was not viewable to this court at that time. 

The court has since viewed the video and considers it in its analysis. 

QuikTrip argues “[t]he presence of the drink machine and cabinetry may 

actually have lessened the severity of the ultimate impact.” Regardless, no 

evidence in the record suggests Gomez could have suffered other possible 

injuries, lesser or greater, if he had not fallen into the soda fountain and 

cabinetry. As the ALJ commented, any speculation on that point is “pure 

conjecture.”

¶9 Gomez did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to show 

the soda fountain and cabinetry into which he fell posed any greater risk to 

him than those common to anyone who falls after fainting. His citation to 

cases from other states and his invocation of Professor Larson lack a factual 

basis. We, thus, need not address Larson’s statement about the 

compensability of an injury from an idiopathic fall when “the employment 

places the employee in a position increasing the dangerous effects of such 

a fall, such as on a height, near machinery or sharp corners, or in a moving 

vehicle.” 1 Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation § 9.01[1] 

(Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed. 2023).

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.