Opinion
No. 1 CA-IC 13-0063
11-04-2014
PETRA MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, JOB 1 USA INC., Respondent Employer, SCF ARIZONA, Respondent Carrier.
COUNSEL Petra Medrano, Phoenix Petitioner Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Andrew F. Wade Counsel for Respondent ICA SCF Arizona, Phoenix By Deborah E. Mittelman Counsel for Respondent Employer/Carrier
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20081-630042
Carrier Claim No. 0814108
The Honorable Suzanne S. Marwil, Administrative Law Judge
AWARD AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Petra Medrano, Phoenix
Petitioner
Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Andrew F. Wade
Counsel for Respondent ICA
SCF Arizona, Phoenix
By Deborah E. Mittelman
Counsel for Respondent Employer/Carrier
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. SWANN, Judge:
¶1 This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission of Arizona ("ICA") decision and award denying petitioner Petra Medrano's request to reopen her industrial claim. The record reveals sufficient evidence to support the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). We therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We previously denied Medrano's motion to consider documents and photographs not provided to the ALJ.
¶2 In May 2008, Medrano suffered an industrial injury when a roll of paper fell on her foot. She filed a workers' compensation claim, and her claim was accepted for benefits. The claim was closed in August 2009, reopened in February 2011, and closed again in December 2011. In August 2012, the ICA issued a decision upon hearing affirming the December 2011 closure. Two months later, the ICA affirmed that decision upon review. Meanwhile, Medrano filed a separate petition to reopen her claim based on the results of an August 2012 magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") scan. The respondent carrier denied the petition, Medrano protested, and the matter proceeded to a hearing.
¶3 At the hearing, which was held over the course of three days, the parties presented the following evidence. The May 2008 industrial accident caused a fracture in the third toe of Medrano's left foot. Over the years, that foot was treated by a series of doctors. In June 2012, podiatrist Dr. Janna Kroleski performed a surgery on the foot, removing a neuroma from the third intermetatarsal space and removing part of the bone on the bottom of the fourth metatarsal head.
¶4 Following the surgery, Medrano continued to complain of pain. Accordingly, in August 2012, Dr. Kroleski ordered an MRI scan of Medrano's left foot. The MRI image showed deformity and bone marrow edema associated with the fourth metatarsal head. It also showed a tear in the fourth plantar plate.
¶5 By January 2013, Medrano's fourth toe had further dislocated. A second MRI scan showed that the fourth metatarsal head was overly prominent and that osteoarthritis had developed within the joint. The image also showed that the tear in the plantar plate had healed. Based on the image, Dr. Kroleski proposed a surgery to decrease the prominence of the fourth metatarsal head. At the time of the hearing, the surgery had not been performed.
¶6 Dr. Kroleski opined that the problems associated with Medrano's fourth toe postdated the June 2012 surgery and were directly related to the May 2008 industrial injury because they resulted from the manner in which that injury changed her ambulation. By contrast, podiatrist Dr. Aprajita Nakra, who reviewed both MRI images and conducted an independent medical examination ("IME") of Medrano in March 2013, opined that the new problems were caused by abnormal biomechanics that preexisted the industrial injury. Dr. Nakra testified that Medrano's discomfort was the result of a deviated fourth toe and plantar fat pad atrophy (present in both feet, though more prominent in the left foot) unrelated to the June 2012 surgery. Dr. Nakra further testified that an injury to the third toe would not cause such deviation of the fourth toe because the toes are in different anatomical regions. Dr. Nakra rejected Dr. Kroleski's opinion that the industrial injury caused destabilization that affected the fourth toe.
¶7 After considering the evidence, the ALJ entered a decision denying Medrano's petition to reopen her claim. The ALJ explained that she resolved the conflict between the opinions of Drs. Kroleski and Nakra by adopting Dr. Nakra's opinions.
¶8 Medrano requested review of the decision, and the ALJ affirmed upon review. Medrano then brought this special action.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(2) and 23-951(A), and Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 10. We defer to the ALJ's factual findings but review questions of law de novo. Young v. Indus. Comm'n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270, ¶ 14, 63 P.3d 298, 301 (App. 2003). We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the ALJ's award. Lovitch v. Indus. Comm'n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16, 41 P.3d 640, 643 (App. 2002).
DISCUSSION
¶10 A.R.S. § 23-1061(H) provides that a claimant may reopen her workers' compensation claim "to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits . . . upon the basis of a new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition . . . ." The claimant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, both (1) the existence of a new, additional or previously undiscovered condition, and (2) a causal relationship between that condition and the prior industrial injury. Sneed v. Indus. Comm'n, 124 Ariz. 357, 359, 604 P.2d 621, 623 (1979). When the causal relationship between the changed condition and the industrial injury is not clearly apparent to a lay person, it must be established by expert medical testimony. Stainless Speciality Mfg. v. Indus. Comm'n, 144 Ariz. 12, 19, 695 P.2d 261, 268 (1985). It is the ALJ's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the expert testimony. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence. Perry v. Indus. Comm'n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398, 542 P.2d 1096, 1097 (1975).
¶11 Medrano's petition did not include the June 2012 surgery, the proposal of which had already been addressed in the proceedings affirming the December 2011 claim closure. The undisputed evidence established that after the surgery, Medrano sustained objective physical changes related to her fourth toe. Drs. Kroleski and Nakra disagreed, however, as to whether those changes were causally related to the May 2008 industrial injury to Medrano's third toe. The conflict in the expert testimony was for the ALJ to resolve, and Dr. Nakra's opinion constituted substantial evidence that provided sufficient support for the ALJ's findings and conclusions. The ALJ did not err by denying Medrano's petition to reopen.
CONCLUSION
¶12 The denial of Medrano's petition to reopen was supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.