Court Opinion

ID: 9364455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 17:02:02.883288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.325340
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                   DEROYCE BEAN, Petitioner Employee,

                                        v.

     THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

            UPPER HOUSE LOGISTICS, Respondent Employer,

        STARNET INSURANCE CO, Respondent Insurance Carrier.

                             No. 1 CA-IC 22-0011
                               FILED 1-19-2023

               Special Action - Industrial Commission
                     ICA Claim No. 20211390468
               Carrier Claim No. 002227-008031-WC-01
        The Honorable Robert E. Trop, Administrative Law Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Deroyce Bean, Glendale
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent
Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston PLLC, Phoenix
By Stephen C. Baker
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurance Carrier

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1           Deroyce Bean appeals from the Industrial Commission of
Arizona’s (“ICA”) award dismissing his allegation that Upper House
Logistics (“Upper House”), and its insurance carrier, Starnet Insurance
Company, denied him benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Bean was injured in May 2021 while delivering packages for
Upper House. His workers’ compensation claim was accepted. He received
treatment, and in late September 2021, his treating physician released him
to a modified work schedule—three days per week—with no restrictions.
Bean challenged that decision, claiming that he was still “in pain and not
fully recovered.” The ICA set the matter for a hearing.

¶3            Before the hearing, the ICA issued notices to the parties telling
them how the hearing process works and informing them of their
responsibilities to call witnesses and submit documentation to support their
positions. Specifically, the notice told Bean that he bore the burden of
proving his contentions by providing evidence to support them. An ICA
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a prehearing conference in January
2022. At the conference, the ALJ asked Bean if he had questions about the
hearing process. In response, Bean stated that he understood “the process
and procedures well.”

¶4            On the date set for the hearing, Bean failed to appear. He had
also filed no documentation that he intended to present as evidence and
had not requested a subpoena for witness testimony. The ALJ dismissed the
matter based on Bean’s failure to appear and failure to timely file medical
documentation that would support his allegations about his medical
condition.

                                      2
                        BEAN v. UPPER/STARNET
                          Decision of the Court

¶5            Bean requested administrative review, arguing that he missed
the hearing because of “data issues” with his phone, and requested that the
hearing be reset with a new date. Upon review, the ALJ affirmed his prior
decision, noting that even if Bean had personally appeared at the hearing,
he would have had no medical documentation or testimony to prove that
his medical condition required him to remain in a “no work” status as he
contended. Bean then filed this special action review.

                                DISCUSSION

¶6              In his brief, Bean states that on the hearing date, he called the
phone number to be joined to the videoconference but could not join
because of “tech phone issues.” He then spoke on the phone to someone at
the ICA about 20 minutes after the scheduled hearing start time. That
person told him to write an explanation of his attempt to connect and send
it to the ALJ, which Bean did. That explanation was received and treated as
a request for administrative review. Bean also says in his brief that he
subpoenaed doctors to testify on his behalf. However, we see no evidence
of this in the ICA record.

¶7             A.R.S. § 23–1061(J) allows workers’ compensation claimants
to allege that they are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.
The person claiming compensation benefits has the burden of showing
entitlement to them. Malinski v. Indus. Comm’n, 103 Ariz. 213 (1968).
Whether a claimant’s medical condition allows him to return to work and
under what circumstances is a question for medical expertise. See Phelps v.
Indus. Comm’n, 155 Ariz. 501, 505 (1987) (“If the result of an industrial
accident is not clearly apparent to a layman, then the causal relationship of
the accident to the physical or mental condition must be established by
expert medical testimony.”). ICA rules require that a party seeking to
subpoena an expert medical witness must request it in writing at least 20
days before the hearing begins. A.A.C. R20–5–141(A)(2). In addition,
medical documentation that a party wants to be considered as evidence
must be filed at least 25 days before the hearing begins. A.A.C.
R20–5–155(A). The record here shows that Bean exercised neither of these
opportunities.

¶8           Bean’s treating doctor’s opinion was that Bean was able to
work without restrictions. Bean’s claim that he could not return to
unrestricted work status because of his medical condition needed support
from an expert medical opinion. Nothing in the record shows that Bean was
prepared to challenge the treating doctor’s opinion with any other medical
opinion. Thus, even though Bean may have had technical issues that

                                       3
                     BEAN v. UPPER/STARNET
                       Decision of the Court

prevented his appearance at the hearing, it did not affect the outcome
because he did not have any evidence ready to support his claim.

                           CONCLUSION

¶9          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the award.

                       AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                       FILED: AA

                                     4