Cited by

Comm’n, or that she is entitled to supportive medical care benefits “to prevent or reduce the continuing symptoms of an industrial injury after the injury has become stabilized.” Capuano v. Indus.

Comm’n, (citations omitted).

Comm’n, we decline to further address this argument.

Comm’n, (we limit our review of the ALJ’s decision “to the same matters which the [ALJ] could consider in [her] review of [her] own decision.”).

In support of this claim, CopperPoint relies on Stephens v. Industrial 5 AGUIRRE V. ICA/CITY OF GOODYEAR, ET AL. Opinion of the Court Commission

In support of this claim, CopperPoint relies on Stephens v. Industrial Commission

¶17 Third, CopperPoint’s is misplaced.

Comm’n, (“This court will not consider on review an issue not raised before the [ICA] where the petitioner has had an opportunity to do so.”).

Comm’n, -95 (App. 1977).

Comm’n, (in absence of specific request for review, appellate court limits review to matters extant in the record and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award).

Comm’n, -95, -15 (App. 1977).

Comm’n, (rejecting argument on appeal not raised before commission “either at the hearing or in petitioner‟s request for review”); see also T.W.M.

Comm’n, see also Samaritan Health Servs.

Comm’n, -96 , -16 (App.1977).

¶ 21, (citing Stephens v. Industrial Comm’n, -95 , -15 (App.1977)).

¶ 21 First, Claimant asserts that we may consider the issue because it is “extant in the record.” Stephens v. Industrial Comm’n, -95 , -15 (App.1977).