Opinion
No. 1 CA-IC 18-0057
04-02-2019
CARMELITA DONALDSON, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, CONCENTRIC HEALTHCARE SOLUTION, Respondent Employer, COPPERPOINT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent Carrier.
APPEARANCES Carmelita Donaldson, Higley Petitioner Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Gaetano J. Testini Counsel for Respondent ICA CopperPoint Mutual Insurance Co., Phoenix By Chiko F. Swiney Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20153-290377
Carrier Claim No. 15G02474
The Honorable Marceline A. Lavelle, Administrative Law Judge
AWARD AFFIRMED
APPEARANCES
Carmelita Donaldson, Higley
Petitioner
Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent ICA
CopperPoint Mutual Insurance Co., Phoenix
By Chiko F. Swiney
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
CAMPBELL, Judge:
¶1 This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission order denying benefits to Carmelita Donaldson. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that Donaldson was precluded from relitigating the causal relationship between her work injury and a subsequent foot surgery because the issue had already been litigated in a prior proceeding. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Donaldson was a certified nursing assistant for Concentric Healthcare Solution. She was injured at work when a patient in a power wheelchair ran over her foot. Donaldson's workers' compensation claim was accepted by CopperPoint General Insurance Company.
¶3 Donaldson saw various doctors about her foot injury, including Dr. Brian Allen, a foot-surgery specialist. He diagnosed Donaldson with a peroneal tendon problem, swelling, edema, and inflammation around the posterior tibial tendon. Dr. Allen attributed these diagnoses to Donaldson's work injury.
¶4 Donaldson was also treated by Dr. Jason Lake, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in foot and ankle treatment. Dr. Lake diagnosed Donaldson with a right midfoot contusion without fracture accompanied by complex regional pain syndrome, which he related to her work injury. However, he concluded her peroneal tendon tear was unrelated to the work injury. Dr. Lake determined the midfoot strain condition was resolved and recommended Donaldson undergo physical therapy, pain management, and a sympathetic block to treat the complex regional pain syndrome.
¶5 In late 2016, Donaldson filed multiple requests for hearings pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 23-1061(J), alleging CopperPoint had failed to authorize orthotics, diagnostic testing, and foot surgery. An ALJ conducted a hearing over multiple days during which both Dr. Allen and Dr. Lake testified. Dr. Lake opined that orthotics, surgery, and an ultrasound test were unnecessary to treat the conditions stemming from Donaldson's work injury, and the ALJ ultimately resolved the evidence in accordance with Dr. Lake's opinions. The ALJ therefore found that Donaldson was not entitled to payment for orthotics, surgery, or an ultrasound evaluation.
¶6 Donaldson requested review and, although the ALJ excused Donaldson's late filings and considered all of the additional documents submitted, the ALJ continued to find Dr. Lake's opinions more persuasive and affirmed the decision. Donaldson filed a petition for special action and this court affirmed the ALJ's findings and award. See Donaldson v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 17-0042, 2018 WL 710231 (Ariz. App. Feb. 6, 2018) (mem. decision).
¶7 In October 2017, Dr. Allen performed surgery on Donaldson's foot to repair her peroneal tendon. In November 2017, Dr. Carol Peairs performed an independent medical evaluation and opined that, regarding the conditions related to her work injury, Donaldson was medically stationary and able to return to work. She determined no further treatment was necessary. Later that month, Donaldson's claim was closed because her work injury had not resulted in any permanent disability.
¶8 Donaldson filed a request for a hearing alleging that CopperPoint was denying her benefits, and her request was treated as a protest to the closure notice. The defendants notified the ALJ that they intended to assert the affirmative defense of res judicata because the issue of the causal relationship between Donaldson's peroneal tendon tear and her work injury had already been litigated to finality. At a hearing limited to the issue of res judicata, Donaldson testified that she wanted CopperPoint to pay for her surgery and argued that other doctors had attributed her peroneal tear to her work injury.
¶9 The ALJ issued an interim order concluding that "any dispute regarding a causal relationship to the industrial injury of October 19, 2015 and the surgery to repair the peroneus brevis tendon in the right foot, the need for orthotics or an ultrasound are barred by the principle of res judicata."
DISCUSSION
¶10 "In the workers' compensation setting, the doctrine of res judicata operates to bar relitigation of those issues which were determined in the previous proceedings as well as those which could have been decided at the time of the original award." Stainless Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 144 Ariz. 12, 15 (1985). A claimant "may not relitigate issues already decided at the time of the first award" under a different guise; "[a]s long as the prior award is final, whatever was decided is final and so is every fact necessary to that decision." Gallegos v. Indus. Comm'n, 144 Ariz. 1, 4 (1985).
¶11 At the res judicata hearing, Donaldson challenged the court's previous findings and award, explained that she wanted CopperPoint to pay for the peroneal tendon surgery, and asked to present testimony from a lay witness who saw the work injury occur. The ALJ explained that, because her work injury had already been accepted as compensable, any such testimony would be irrelevant. The ALJ also explained that the Industrial Commission's conclusion that the peroneal tendon tear was unrelated to the work injury had been litigated to finality when the award was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Donaldson raised no new issues to the ALJ, and she was not entitled to relitigate the same issues or ask the Commission to reconsider its previous findings. We therefore affirm the Commission's order.
CONCLUSION
¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.