Gurashi v. intermountain/zurich

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MAKI GURASHI, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

INTERMOUNTAIN EMPLOYMENT SVC DBA INTERMOUNTAIN
STAFFING DBA ASCEND STAFFING, Respondent Employer,

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 24-0005
FILED 02-04-2025

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20231460029
Carrier Claim No. 2230598777
The Honorable Trudy Rushforth, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maki Gurashi, Avondale
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Afshan Peimani
Counsel for Respondent
Ritsema Law, Phoenix
By Deborah P. Hansen
Counsel for Respondent Employers and Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Maki Gurashi appeals the Industrial Commission of
Arizona’s (“Commission”) denial of his workers’ compensation claim for
failure to promptly report his injury. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In September 2021, Gurashi worked as a forklift operator for
Ascend Staffing Agency (“Employer”) until he broke his right leg while
driving a forklift. Following his covered injury, Gurashi performed light
duty work for Employer.

¶3 On December 6, 2022, Gurashi injured his back and right leg
after stepping down from a step ladder while cleaning windows at work.
Gurashi continued working in his regular light duty position after this
injury.

¶4 Gurashi filed a worker’s report of injury on May 19, 2023. On
July 3, 2023, Zurich American Insurance Co. (“Zurich”) denied his claim
because there was “no employer or medical evidence of industrially related
injury.” Gurashi requested a hearing with the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) because he disagreed with Zurich’s denial.

¶5 The Commission conducted a hearing in October 2023, at
which the ALJ heard testimony from Gurashi and Employer’s
representative, Gurashi’s manager. We view that evidence in the light most
favorable to affirming the award. Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 102,
105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002).

¶6 The issue at the hearing was whether Gurashi’s December 6,
2022 injury was compensable. Gurashi testified as to how he sustained his
injury. Although Gurashi said he “did not tell [anybody]” that he fell, he

2
 GURASHI v. INTERMOUNTAIN/ZURICH
Decision of the Court

said he told an employee in the office that he got injured. He sought
medical attention two weeks after the injury occurred.

¶7 Employer raised failure to promptly report as an affirmative
defense. Gurashi’s manager testified that she did not witness the injury,
nor did Gurashi inform her of his injury. She said she told Gurashi not to
use the ladder due to his preexisting injury. She also added that the
company did not receive notice that Gurashi was claiming a work injury
until he filed a worker’s report of injury in May 2023. On cross-
examination, Gurashi asked her one question unrelated to the reporting
timing issue.

¶8 Following this hearing, the ALJ denied Gurashi’s claim,
finding his testimony not credible, and that he did not report an injury until
filing his claim in May 2023. The ALJ determined that his failure to timely
report the injury violated Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 23-
908(D).

¶9 On November 20, 2023, Gurashi filed a request for review,
stating:

[I] reported the incident after it occurred to [the office
manager]. At the time of the incident, [the office manager]
was in her office, which shows [I] reported the incident
reasonably and after [my] physician reported the injury to
[Ascend].

¶10 The ALJ affirmed its ruling and this statutory special action
followed. Gurashi submitted an opening brief on April 23, 2024. We struck
his first opening brief because he failed to include certificates of compliance
and service as required by Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
14(a)(5) and 15(d)(2). Gurashi then resubmitted his brief with the required
certificates of compliance and service on April 29, 2024. Employer did not
submit an answering brief or a motion to extend time to file the brief, so the
special action was submitted.

¶11 This court has jurisdiction under Sections 12-120.21(A)(2) and
23-951(A).

DISCUSSION

¶12 This court defers to the ALJ for questions of fact, but reviews
determinations of law de novo. Sun Valley Masonry Inc. v. Indus. Comm’n,
216 Ariz. 462, 463-64, ¶ 2 (App. 2007).

3
 GURASHI v. INTERMOUNTAIN/ZURICH
Decision of the Court

¶13 “Opening briefs must present and address significant
arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant’s position on
the issue in question.” Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009).
Additionally, opening briefs must contain “appropriate references to the
portions of the record on which appellant relies.” ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A);
Zepeda v. Indus. Comm’n, 2 CA-IC 2015-0009, 2016 WL 1612330, at *1, ¶ 5
(Ariz. App. Apr. 20, 2016) (mem. decision). We hold unrepresented
litigants to the same standards as attorneys. Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76,
83-84, ¶ 24 (2017).

¶14 Gurashi’s opening brief does not provide any authority
supporting his position. He argues that Employer was negligent and failed
to follow his doctor’s instructions, and that Employer instructed him to
clean the office windows using a ladder but Gurashi’s manager testified
that she told Gurashi to not use the ladder due to his injury. Gurashi
provides no record citations, nor does he cite to any legal authority to
support his position. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522-23, ¶¶8, 10 (App.
2022). Gurashi has therefore waived any issues he may wish to submit for
this court’s review.

¶15 But even assuming Gurashi’s opening brief complied with
our rules and he raised a cognizable legal issue, the ALJ’s decision was
supported by the record. See Lovitch, 202 Ariz. at 105, ¶ 16. Injured workers
must report their injuries to their employer “forthwith.” A.R.S. § 23-908(E).
Failure to do so can result in no compensation for the claimed injury unless
excused. A.R.S. § 23-908(F). Here, the ALJ found that Gurashi failed to
report his injury forthwith as required under the statute and his delay was
not excused.

¶16 Gurashi was present at the hearing and had an opportunity
to present evidence explaining why he waited five months to report his
injury. He did not do so. Therefore, on this record, we cannot say that the
ALJ erred in denying Gurashi’s claim based on failure to report forthwith.

CONCLUSION

¶17 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: TM
4