Court Opinion

ID: 9411013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 17:05:12.966776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.191914
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JTSG ENTP INC SOLUTIONS STAFFING DBA SOLUTIONS STAFFING,
                        Petitioner Employer,

  ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE CO C/O GALLAGHER BASSETT,
                  Petitioner Insurance Carrier,

                                         v.

      THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

                 CARLOS MARTINEZ, Respondent Employee.

                              No. 1 CA-IC 22-0035
                                FILED 7-25-2023

                Special Action - Industrial Commission
                   ICA Claim No. ICA20210920283
               Carrier Claim No. 001627-167049-WC-01
       The Honorable Rachel C. Morgan, Administrative Law Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

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

Fernandez Watts Law PLLC, Phoenix
By Shayna Fernandez Watts
Counsel for Respondent Employee

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

    ¶1       Petitioners Solutions Staffing (“Employer”) and Zurich
         America Insurance, Co. (“Zurich”) appeal the Industrial
         Commission of Arizona’s decision awarding Carlos Martinez
         temporary disability benefits. For the following reasons, the
         Commission’s decision is affirmed.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    ¶2        Martinez was employed as an operations technician by
         Employer, responsible for maintaining three or four machine
         presses. Before starting his employment, Martinez signed
         Employer’s Substance Abuse Policy (“Policy”). The Policy
         prohibited “[t]he use, possession, solicitation for, or sale of” drugs
         and “[b]eing impaired or under the influence of” drugs “that
         adversely affects the employee’s work performance [or] his or her
         own or others’ safety at the workplace.”

    ¶3         On March 12, 2021, while Martinez and a coworker were
         cleaning a machine press, Martinez stepped off a platform onto
         uneven concrete, causing him to fall and twist his ankle. Martinez
         testified he neither was “high” nor had “marijuana or marijuana
         products” when he arrived at work that day. He further testified
         he did not “ingest marijuana” nor attempt to buy or sell marijuana
         during his shift. Before his injury, nobody at work spoke with
         Martinez about marijuana or his performance or asked him to take

                                      2
                   JTSG/ZURICH v. MARTINEZ
                       Decision of the Court

     a drug test that day. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found
     Martinez’ testimony credible.

¶4        Due to the fall, Martinez went to FastMed Urgent Care
     (“FastMed”) which diagnosed his injury as a fractured metatarsal
     in his foot. Pursuant to Employer’s Policy, FastMed collected a
     sample to perform a drug test because Martinez had suffered an
     injury. Martinez informed the test examiner that he had an active
     medical marijuana card. The card designated Martinez as a patient,
     and he used medical marijuana for back pain he claimed arose
     from overuse during his military service. FastMed discharged
     Martinez with work restrictions of “[l]imited walking, stairs and
     no ladders.”

¶5         On his next workday, Martinez returned to work, where
     Employer accommodated his work restrictions by assigning him
     clerical work. But when Martinez arrived at work on the following
     day, his manager informed him his employment was terminated
     because his drug test was positive for THC, the substance that
     indicates the presence of marijuana. Martinez protested, informing
     his manager that he possessed a medical marijuana card, but to no
     avail. Employer’s internal communication and termination letter to
     Martinez later that week confirmed that the cause was a positive
     drug test result.

¶6        On March 22, Martinez began treatment for his work-related
     injury with a doctor. That same day, Martinez properly filed a
     workers’ compensation claim with the Commission. About a
     month later, Zurich accepted Martinez’ claim. On May 19, the
     doctor modified Martinez’ work restrictions such that he “must be
     seated 80% of the time [and] no lifting greater than 10 pounds.”

¶7        On June 21, Doctor released Martinez from work restrictions.
     From the date of his termination until then, Martinez applied for
     eight employment positions: a benefit specialist, driving instructor,
     salesman, greeter, twice for cable technician, cable installer, and
     driver. He did not obtain work during that time. On July 9,
     Martinez’ doctor discharged him from care.

¶8        Zurich closed Martinez’ claim on August 9, citing his
     discharge from medical treatment, and limited Martinez’ benefits
     to medical only. Martinez requested a hearing before the
     Commission seeking temporary disability payments and claiming

                                  3
                       JTSG/ZURICH v. MARTINEZ
                           Decision of the Court

          a permanent impairment requiring active treatment. After a
          hearing before the Commission’s ALJ, Employer was found to
          have violated the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act’s (“AMMA”)
          anti-discrimination provision by terminating Martinez simply
          based on his positive drug test results for THC. The ALJ awarded
          Martinez temporary disability benefits from March 16 to June 20.
          Employer and Zurich petitioned for review. Upon review, the
          decision was affirmed.

     ¶9        This Court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-120.21(B), A.R.S.
          § 23-951(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Action 10.

                               DISCUSSION

     ¶10      This court “defer[s] to the ALJ’s factual findings but review[s]
        questions of law de novo” and “consider[s] the evidence in the
        light most favorable to upholding the award.” Special Fund Div. v.
        Indus. Comm’n, 252 Ariz. 267, 269, ¶6 (App. 2021). “Reasonable
        inferences from the evidence will be supported, but speculation
        based on nothing in the record cannot be indulged.” Nelson v.
        Indus. Comm’n, 134 Ariz. 369, 376 (1982).

I.   THE ARGUMENTS               REGARDING         THE      AMMA       WERE
     ABANDONED.

     ¶11      Petitioners’ briefs argued that Martinez failed to establish he
        was a qualifying patient under the AMMA and therefore the
        Employer could not violate the AMMA’s anti-discrimination
        provision in A.R.S. § 36-2813. They also argued that the ALJ erred
        in not applying the safety-sensitive position exception in the
        AMMA found at A.R.S. § 23-493.06(A)(7). At oral argument,
        Petitioners stated that this Court did not need to address these two
        arguments and asked that it solely focus on their third argument:
        that Martinez failed to establish he engaged in a good faith job
        search. Because Petitioners abandoned their first two arguments,
        this Court will not consider them. See Miller v. Hehlen, 209 Ariz. 462,
        467, ¶ 13 n.4 (App. 2005); Pruitt v. Pavelin, 141 Ariz. 195, 201 (App.
        1984).

II. THE ALJ’S DETERMINATION THAT MARTINEZ ENGAGED IN
    A GOOD FAITH JOB SEARCH WILL NOT BE DISTURBED.

     ¶12      Petitioners’ sole remaining argument is that Martinez bore the
        initial burden to show lost earning capacity related to his injury

                                       4
                 JTSG/ZURICH v. MARTINEZ
                     Decision of the Court

   and failed to do so. Avila v. Indus. Comm’n, 219 Ariz. 56, 59, ¶ 13
   (App. 2008). Petitioners argue Martinez solicited too few job
   positions and sought employment inconsistent with his work
   restrictions.

¶13      An unfruitful good faith effort to seek employment is one
   means to satisfy this duty. Avila, 219 Ariz. at 59 ¶ 13. Alternatively,
   a claimant can either (1) “present[] testimony from a labor market
   expert,” Id. at ¶ 14, or (2) show membership in the “odd-lot
   category” where the employee’s ability to work is “so limited in
   quality, dependability, or quantity that a reasonably stable market
   for them does not exist.” Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Indus.
   Comm’n, 25 Ariz. App. 117, 120 (1975). Because Martinez provided
   no evidence or testimony regarding the alternatives, he must show
   he made a good faith effort to gain work and evidence of such is a
   factual question to be determined by the ALJ.

¶14     This Court looks to the circumstances of each case to
   determine whether claimants have made a satisfactory effort. See
   Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 114 Ariz. 252, 254 (App. 1977)
   (finding a satisfactory effort made when claimant “went to his
   employer’s Labor Department Head and inquired about the
   availability of light work” even though he failed to file formal
   applications). Here, Martinez testified that he applied for eight
   positions between March 16 and June 21. While Martinez did not
   know the specific requirements for two of those positions—cable
   technician and cable installer—he believed he could perform the
   work while conforming to his work restrictions or at least seek
   accommodations.

¶15      Petitioners ask this Court to establish a static rule on what
   constitutes a “good faith job search.” Petitioners provide no
   support that the Legislature or the Industrial Commission have
   implemented such a rule. Since this Court’s job is to interpret the
   law as written and applied, it will not take this opportunity to
   create law. Martinez provided evidence of his attempts to gain
   employment. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the
   ALJ made a credibility determination as to whether those attempts
   equated to a “good faith attempt.” This was a factual determination
   that was left to the ALJ and not an abuse of discretion. For this
   reason, this Court will not disturb the ALJ’s finding that Martinez
   is entitled to temporary disability benefits.

                                 5
              JTSG/ZURICH v. MARTINEZ
                  Decision of the Court

                     CONCLUSION

¶16   For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms.

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

                               6