Court Opinion

ID: 9401543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 16:04:30.488728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.387779
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                   PATRICK BARNES, Petitioner Employee,

                                         v.

      THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

     SEATTLE MARINERS MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, Respondent
                         Employer,

     UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY, Respondent Carrier.

                              No. 1 CA-IC 22-0042
                               FILED 6-13-2023

                Special Action - Industrial Commission
                      ICA Claim No. 20220310296
                 Carrier Claim No. 042-CB-FVC6021-K
         The Honorable Paula R. Eaton, Administrative Law Judge

                             AWARD AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Patrick Barnes, Jacksonville Beach, FL
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent
Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont & Slavin, P.C., Phoenix, AZ
By Kirk A. Barberich
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurance Carrier

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1           Patrick Barnes challenges an Industrial Commission of
Arizona (“ICA”) Award that dismissed his claim for lack of jurisdiction
because it was not timely filed. Our review of the record brings us to the
same conclusion. We affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             In 1998, Barnes signed a contract to play baseball with the
Seattle Mariners. While pitching for a Mariners farm team based in
Wisconsin in the spring of 2002, he hurt his shoulder during a game in
Illinois. After a few days of treatment at the Wisconsin base, the team sent
him to its minor league facility in Arizona for rehabilitation. Soon after, the
Mariners released him from the team. He sought work with other teams
and signed another contract with the Cleveland Indians in 2004, but that
was short-lived, and he did not play professionally after 2007. His shoulder
continued to need treatment.

¶3             In January 2022, he filed an Arizona workers’ compensation
claim for the 2002 injury. The Mariners and its carrier, United States Fidelity
& Guaranty, denied the claim. Barnes requested a hearing. In June 2022, the
ICA conducted a hearing solely on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the
claim based on when it was filed.

¶4            Barnes testified at the hearing. When asked why he had
waited so long to file a claim, he answered that no one told him, nor was he
aware that he could file a workers’ compensation claim for the injury until
he tried to get medical records from the Mariners in 2022. Once he learned
about workers’ compensation, he filed his claim. At the hearing, he testified:
“I wish I would have known. I would have done something sooner.”

                                      2
                  BARNES v. MARINERS/US FIDELITY
                        Decision of the Court

¶5           The ICA Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an award
dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was not filed
within one year of the injury, and no statutory exception applied. The
award was affirmed upon administrative review. This special action review
followed.

                               DISCUSSION

¶6             An injured worker must file a claim “within one year after the
injury occurred or the right thereto accrued.” A.R.S. § 23-1061(A). The time
for filing “begins to run when the injury becomes manifest or when the
claimant knows or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know that
the claimant has sustained a compensable injury.” Id. Failure to file timely
is excusable if the worker (1) justifiably relied on “a material representation
by the commission, employer or insurance carrier”; or (2) “is insane or
legally incompetent or incapacitated at the time the injury occurs or the
right to compensation accrues or during the one-year period thereafter.” Id.
An allegation that a claim was untimely filed is an affirmative defense. Allen
v. Indus. Comm’n, 152 Ariz. 405, 409–10 (1987).

¶7             Barnes has not argued that any of the statutory exceptions
apply to him. Nor did he provide evidence supporting any statutory
excuses for failing to file his claim on time. The ALJ’s finding that Barnes
knew he had sustained a compensable injury in 2002 is a reasonable
conclusion from the evidence presented. Her rejection of Barnes’
assignment of blame on the Mariners organization is also reasonable. See
McCormick v. Indus. Comm’n, 96 Ariz. 88, 90 (1964) (A late-filed claim is not
excused by blaming the “negligence and dereliction” of another.). Because
of this, neither the ICA nor this court has the jurisdiction to consider the
claim. A.R.S. § 23-1061(A).

                              CONCLUSION

¶8            We affirm the dismissal of Barnes’ claim for lack of
jurisdiction.

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

                                        3