Opinion
No. 2 CA-IC 2015-0002
08-26-2015
ABOU G. BOURAIMA, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, TOHONO O'ODHAM NURSING CARE AUTHORITY, Respondent Employer, COPPERPOINT WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent Insurer.
COUNSEL Abou G. Bouraima, Tucson In Propria Persona The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Andrew F. Wade Counsel for Respondent Copperpoint Western Insurance Company, Tucson James B. Stabler, Chief Counsel By Joseph N. Lodge Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurer
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).
Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20130770412
Insurer No. 13W00389
Jacqueline Wohl, Administrative Law Judge
AWARD AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Abou G. Bouraima, Tucson
In Propria Persona
The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Andrew F. Wade
Counsel for Respondent
Copperpoint Western Insurance Company, Tucson
James B. Stabler, Chief Counsel
By Joseph N. Lodge
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurer
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 In this statutory special action, petitioner employee Abou Bouraima challenges the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) finding his medical condition stable and stationary, with no permanent impairment or need for supportive care, and closing his claim. We have jurisdiction to review the ALJ's award and decision pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(2) and 23-951, as well as Rule 10, Ariz. R. P. Spec. Actions.
¶2 On review, Bouraima has not presented this court with clear issues or arguments that are supported by any legal authority, as required by Rule 13(a)(6) and (7), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., and Rule 10(k), Ariz. R. P. Spec. Actions. He claims, for example, that he "strongly disagree[s with] a decision [of] the insurance physician" and that certain "body language show[ed] the partiality" of the ALJ. "Parties who choose to represent themselves 'are entitled to no more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel' and are
held to the same standards as attorneys with respect to 'familiarity with required procedures and . . . notice of statutes and local rules.'" In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008), quoting Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53, 386 P.2d 649, 652 (1963). In the absence of a properly developed argument, we find any issue related to the award waived on review. See Polanco v. Indus. Comm'n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2, 154 P.3d 391, 393 n.2 (App. 2007).
¶3 The award and decision are affirmed.