Amenya v. mentor/aiu

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BELINDA AMENYA, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

MENTOR MANAGEMENT INC, Respondent Employer,

AIU INSURANCE CO, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 24-0039
FILED 03-11-2025

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20231730050
Carrier Claim No. 4A2301204Y4-0001
The Honorable Jeanne Steiner, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Belinda Amenya, Phoenix
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Afshan Peimani
Counsel for Respondent

Ritsema Law, Phoenix
By Kelly F. Kruegel
Counsel for Respondent Employer Carrier
 AMENYA v. MENTOR/AIU
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Chief Judge David B. Gass and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Belinda Amenya appeals an Industrial Commission of
Arizona (“ICA”) award affirming the closure of her claim without
permanent impairment. Because evidence supports the conclusion reached
by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Amenya worked for Mentor Management, Inc. as an assisted
living caregiver in a group home on January 1, 2023, the date she was
injured. While Amenya was working alone that day, a resident of the home
attacked her from behind, hitting Amenya with a closed fist on her neck,
upper right shoulder, and right arm. Amenya finished her shift alone
without reporting the incident. The next day, she told her supervisor, who
sent her to urgent care for treatment. She was treated with pain medication
and physical therapy.

¶3 Six months later, the carrier, AIU Insurance Co., closed
Amenya’s claim with no permanent impairment. Amenya challenged the
closure, and the ICA held a hearing.

¶4 Two medical expert witnesses testified, Drs. Collins and
Farber. Dr. Collins, an orthopedic surgeon who started treating Amenya in
May 2023, said a March 2023 MRI of Amenya’s shoulder showed a “very
low grade partial rotator cuff tear.” Amenya continued to have pain. Even
so, in July 2023 Dr. Collins diagnosed her with a rotator cuff strain and
believed she had reached maximum medical improvement at that time.

¶5 Amenya obtained another MRI of her shoulder in August
2023, which showed the tear had grown larger. Amenya denied any
shoulder re-injury after the initial March MRI, so Dr. Collins concluded the
tear had worsened and related it to the January 2023 work injury. Because
of the change in condition, he recommended surgical repair.

2
 AMENYA v. MENTOR/AIU
Decision of the Court

¶6 Dr. Adam Farber, also an orthopedic surgeon, performed an
independent medical examination (“IME”) in June 2023. His IME was the
basis for AIU’s claim closure. Dr. Farber concluded Amenya suffered a
shoulder contusion in January 2023 that had resolved by June 2023. He
testified he saw no tear in the March 2023 MRI. He described the “tear” as
“interstitial tendinosis, which is pretty common as people get older.” He
also testified the August 2023 MRI showed only a “very small” change from
March and he deemed that change insignificant. He also said rotator cuff
tears are common as people get older. He concluded the MRI findings were
“age-related degenerative” in nature, not “post-traumatic,” and Amenya’s
shoulder condition was not related to the January 2023 work injury.

¶7 The ALJ considered the evidence and issued an award finding
Dr. Farber’s opinions were “more probably correct and well-founded.” The
ALJ determined Amenya had become medically stationary in May 2023 and
had no permanent impairment. Amenya moved for reconsideration, and
the ALJ affirmed the award. Amenya then brought this statutory special
action. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§
12-120.21(B), 23-951(A).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to
upholding the award. Avila v. Indus. Comm’n, 219 Ariz. 56, 57 ¶ 2 (App.
2008). The ALJ is primarily responsible for resolving conflicts in medical
opinion evidence. Carousel Snack Bar v. Indus. Comm’n, 156 Ariz. 43, 46
(1988). We defer to the ALJ’s resolution of these conflicts and will affirm the
ALJ’s findings if any reasonable theory of the evidence supports them. Perry
v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398–99 (1975).

¶9 The injured worker bears the burden of proof to show that the
condition has not become stationary, entitling the worker to continued
benefits. Stephens v. Indus. Comm’n, 114 Ariz. 92, 94 (App. 1977). A condition
is stationary when it reaches maximum medical improvement because “the
physical condition of the employee resulting from the industrial injury has
reached a relatively stable status so that nothing further in the way of
medical treatment is indicated to improve that condition.” Aragon v. Indus.
Comm’n, 14 Ariz. App. 175, 176 (1971). When an issue is peculiarly within
the knowledge of medical doctors, such as whether a medical condition is
stationary, competent medical testimony must support a worker’s claim the
condition is not stationary. Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Indus. Comm’n, 199
Ariz. 532, 535–36 ¶ 12 (2001).

3
 AMENYA v. MENTOR/AIU
Decision of the Court

¶10 Here, Dr. Collins opined that Amenya needed surgical
treatment because of the January 2023 work injury. On the other hand, Dr.
Farber testified Amenya’s condition was degenerative and did not relate to
the work injury. Where two inferences may be drawn from the evidence,
the ALJ may choose either inference and we will not disturb that choice
unless it is wholly unreasonable. Waller v. Indus. Comm’n, 99 Ariz. 15, 18
(1965).

¶11 On appeal, Amenya reargues the evidence, insisting the ALJ
should not have accepted Dr. Farber’s opinion over Dr. Collins’. But she has
not shown the ALJ choice was wholly unreasonable. Moreover, as we have
noted, when facing two medical opinions, the ALJ may choose the medical
opinion best accounting for the evidence presented. And we will not re-
weigh evidence. Kaibab Indus. v. Indus. Comm’n, 196 Ariz. 601, 608 ¶ 21 (App.
2000). Dr. Farber based his opinion on evidence submitted at the hearing.
Thus, he provided competent expert testimony on which the ALJ could
rely.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm the award.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4