Gurashi v. intermtn/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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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,

INTERMTN EMPLOYMENT SVC INC, INTERMTN STAFFING ASCEND
STAFFING, Respondent Employer,

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 24-0013
FILED 12-10-2024

Special Action – Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 2021800070
Carrier Claim No. 2080390746
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 Brian Duckworth
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 This special action reviews the Industrial Commission of
Arizona’s decision that Maki Gurashi’s industrial injury is stationary with
a 5% permanent impairment. Because Gurashi shows no reversible error,
we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Gurashi worked as a forklift driver at Intermountain Staffing
Resources in September 2021 when a forklift fell on him and broke his leg.
Gurashi underwent surgery and in-patient rehabilitation. He then received
out-patient follow-up care from Dr. Stanley Graves, a board-certified
orthopedic surgeon.

¶3 About a year after the injury, Dr. Graves concluded Gurashi’s
lower right leg suffered a 54% impairment and would improve no more.
Gurashi needed a walking cane because he felt pain and numbness.

¶4 Gurashi filed a workers’ compensation claim, which the
carrier accepted. At the carrier’s request, Gurashi received an independent
medical evaluation from Dr. Anthony Theiler, a board-certified orthopedic
surgeon. Dr. Theiler personally examined Gurashi and reviewed his
medical records. He concluded that Gurashi’s condition was stationary
with a 5% impairment.

¶5 The carrier closed Gurashi’s claim based on Dr. Theiler’s
report, awarding benefits for a 5% permanent impairment. Gurashi
requested a hearing. The ALJ adopted a 5% impairment rating after
reviewing Gurashi’s medical records and hearing testimony from Dr.
Graves, Dr. Theiler and Gurashi. Gurashi requested review and the ALJ
summarily affirmed.

2
 GURASHI v. INTERMTN/ZURICH
Decision of the Court

¶6 Gurashi timely petitioned for special action review. We have
jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(2), 23-951(A); Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 10.

DISCUSSION

¶7 An ALJ’s award will not be set aside unless it “cannot be
supported by any reasonable theory of the evidence.” Gamez v. Indus.
Comm’n, 213 Ariz. 314, 315, ¶ 9 (App. 2006). When presented with
conflicting medical expert testimony, an ALJ must determine which
testimony is more probably correct. Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397,
398 (1975). This court will not reweigh conflicting medical evidence absent
an abuse of discretion. See Kaibab Indus. v. Indus. Comm’n, 196 Ariz. 601, 609,
¶ 10 (App. 2000).

¶8 Gurashi insists the ALJ should have adopted Dr. Graves’
impairment rating rather than Dr. Theiler’s impairment rating, but the
record includes ample evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. Dr. Theiler
personally examined Gurashi and reviewed his medical records before
concluding that Gurashi’s knee and ankle had “full strength, full range of
motion, and no instability.” Finding no error, we affirm.

CONCLUSION

¶9 Affirmed.

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

3