Court Opinion

ID: 9407353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 17:05:29.537286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.115790
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                 MICHAEL CALOVICH, Petitioner Employee,

                                         v.

      THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

                      WAL MART, Respondent Employer,

       WAL MART ASSOCIATES INC, Respondent Insurance Carrier.

                              No. 1 CA-IC 22-0050
                                FILED 7-6-2023

                Special Action - Industrial Commission
                            No. 20213350527
                       Carrier Claim No. 9910353
         The Honorable Jeanne Steiner, Administrative Law Judge

                             AWARD AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Michael Calovich, Murfreesboro, TN
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona
Ritsema Law, Phoenix
By Danielle S. Vukonich
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Respondent Insurance Carrier

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1          Michael Calovich appeals from an Industrial Commission of
Arizona (“ICA”) award and decision upon review finding his claim non-
compensable. Because Calovich has shown no error, we affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           In November 2021, Calovich filed a claim for workers’
compensation, alleging he was injured while moving a large pallet at work.
The insurance carrier denied his claim. Calovich then requested a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Over three days, the ALJ
heard testimony from (1) Calovich, (2) Roger Gilbert, P.A., a physician’s
assistant who treated Calovich, and (3) Dr. Ernie Riffer, who performed an
independent medical examination.

¶3           Calovich testified that in November 2021, he worked at
Walmart as an overnight grocery stocker. One night at around 3:30 a.m., he
used a manual pallet-jack to move a pallet of frozen food weighing about
2,000 pounds. Calovich did not feel any pain while moving the pallet, but
when he laid down at home the next afternoon, he felt a sharp pain in his
chest. Calovich believed that moving the pallet caused his injury because
he had done no other heavy lifting before the onset of his chest pain. He
explained that he often does not immediately feel pain when he is injured.

¶4            P.A. Gilbert testified that he first treated Calovich in 2019 for
open-heart surgery. As part of that surgery, doctors opened Calovich’s
sternum to reach his heart, then closed his sternum with sternotomy wires.
P.A. Gilbert testified that based on his examination of Calovich and his
review of his CT scans, Calovich had a fractured sternotomy wire, causing
his chest pain. P.A. Gilbert concluded that when Calovich moved the pallet,
he fractured the wire or aggravated an existing fracture. When cross-

                                      2
               CALOVICH v. WAL MART/WAL MART A
                       Decision of the Court

examined, he acknowledged that if someone fractured a wire moving a
heavy pallet, they would generally feel pain as soon as the injury occurred,
not hours later.

¶5            Dr. Riffer testified that his review of Calovich’s CT scans did
not reveal evidence of a wire fracture, but his physical examination
revealed sternal cracking and pain. He concluded that if Calovich fractured
a wire, it did not occur while Calovich was moving the pallet because he
would have felt pain immediately, not twelve hours later. Dr. Riffer offered
other possible explanations for Calovich’s chest pain: residual pain from
surgery, costochondritis (inflammation where the ribs meet the sternum),
and chronic respiratory illness.

¶6            The ALJ credited Dr. Riffer’s testimony and concluded that
because there was no causal relationship between Calovich’s work activity
and his chest pain, Calovich had failed to establish eligibility for workers’
compensation. Calovich requested review of the decision, and the ALJ
affirmed the decision upon review. Calovich then timely filed this special
action. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-
120.21(A)(2) and 23-951(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special
Actions 10.

                              DISCUSSION

¶7           We defer to the ALJ’s factual findings, but we review de novo
any questions of law. Avila v. Indus. Comm’n, 219 Ariz. 56, 57, ¶ 2 (App.
2008). We will not disturb the ALJ’s resolution of conflicting medical
evidence and will affirm the decision if it is supported by reasonable
evidence. Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398–99 (1975).

¶8            To establish eligibility for workers’ compensation, an
employee must show that he was injured in an accident that occurred in the
course of his employment, the injury was “caused in whole, or in part . . .
by a necessary risk or danger of [his] employment,” and “that the accident
caused the injury.” Grammatico v. Indus. Comm’n, 211 Ariz. 67, 71, ¶ 19
(2005).

¶9            Calovich argues the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. Riffer’s opinion
to find that he had not established a causal connection between his injury
and work activity.1 In essence, Calovich asks that we reweigh conflicting

1      Calovich also submitted numerous documents not included in the
record with his opening brief. We do not consider these documents, as our

                                     3
               CALOVICH v. WAL MART/WAL MART A
                       Decision of the Court

testimony, which we cannot do. See Carousel Snack Bar v. Indus. Comm’n,
156 Ariz. 43, 46 (1988) (“[C]onflicts in medical evidence must be resolved
by the trier of fact.”). The ALJ heard conflicting testimony on the cause of
Calovich’s injury and resolved this conflict by crediting Dr. Riffer’s opinion
that moving the pallet could not have caused Calovich’s injury. This
conclusion is supported by reasonable evidence. We find no error.

                              CONCLUSION

¶10           We affirm the award and decision upon review.

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

review is confined to “only those matters in the record.” Lewis v. Oliver, 178
Ariz. 330, 338 (App. 1993).

                                        4