Arvallo v. master/travelers

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARTHA ARVALLO, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

MASTER INTERNATIONAL CORP DBA MASTER ELECT, Respondent
Employer,

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO OF CONNECTICUT, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 25-0007
FILED 12-30-2025

Special Action – Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20223430252
Carrier Claim No. 042-CB-FXW9169-P
The Honorable Eric W. Slavin, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Afshan Peimani
Counsel for Respondent
 ARVALLO v. MASTER/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

Lundmark Barberich La Mont & Puig PC, Phoenix
By Javier Arturo Puig
Counsel for Respondent Employer

Lundmark Barberich La Mont & Puig PC, Phoenix
By David T. Lundmark
Counsel for Respondent Insurance Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Martha Arvallo challenges an Industrial Commission award
denying her petition to reopen her November 2022 industrial injury claim.
Martha argues the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by rejecting the
testimony of her medical expert in favor of a competing expert’s testimony,
and by finding she failed to establish a new, additional, or previously
undiscovered condition related to her injury. Because reasonable evidence
supports the ALJ’s findings and award, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Martha Is Injured at Work and Receives Treatment.

¶2 On November 21, 2022, Arvallo was working in a warehouse
as a Picking Associate for Master International Corporation DBA Master
Electronics when she felt a “pop” across her back, neck, and right shoulder
while lifting boxes. At her medical examination by Concentra on
November 28, 2022, she reported sharp, dull, aching, and burning pain
across the right lateral, posterior, and superior shoulder, radiating toward
the right side of her neck. Martha also reported a decreased range of motion
and stiffness, worsened by arm elevation, lifting, and shoulder movement.

¶3 Concentra diagnosed a right shoulder strain and right
trapezius strain and prescribed conservative care, including non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs, 600 milligrams of ibuprofen three times daily as
needed, physical therapy to address deficits in motion and strength, and
activity restrictions. Concentra allowed her to continue working full shifts
but limited her to lifting, pushing, and pulling no more than ten pounds.

2
 ARVALLO v. MASTER/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

On March 16, 2023, the Industrial Commission found the injury
compensable and approved her request to treat with Dr. Ruchir Gupta, a
pain specialist. Martha’s claim was ultimately closed effective June 28,
2023, without any finding of permanent disability.

B. Martha Continues Experiencing Symptoms After Claim
Closure and Undergoes Post-Closure Imaging.

¶4 After her claim closed, Martha continued to report neck and
right shoulder discomfort. By January 2024, an emergency-department
note documented chronic right-sided neck pain dating back to the
November 2022 lifting incident. The note stated Martha awaited further
evaluation by Dr. Gupta. She denied any new trauma preceding her
worsening symptoms. As part of this ongoing treatment, post-closure
imaging showed multiple levels of degenerative disc disease and a lack of
facet pathology. These studies formed the basis of the conflicting medical
assessments presented at the reopening hearing.

C. After the Carrier Denied Martha’s Petition to Reopen, She
Requested a Hearing, During Which the ALJ Received Expert
Testimony from Drs. Gupta and Chen.

¶5 Martha filed a petition to reopen her claim on March 22, 2024,
seeking additional cervical treatment Dr. Gupta recommended. That
recommendation was based on Martha reporting new right shoulder blade
pain distinct from her earlier neck symptoms. A subsequent right shoulder
MRI showed subacromial and subdeltoid bursitis. The carrier denied
reopening in an April 8, 2024 Notice of Claim Status, and Martha filed a
Request for Hearing on April 22, 2024.

¶6 At the hearing, Dr. Gupta testified for Martha about his
examinations of and treatment for her neck and right shoulder pain. To
evaluate her ongoing pain, he administered two cervical medial branch
blocks (“MBBs”) in March and April of 2023, both of which produced
approximately 80% relief, and performed an intra-articular shoulder
injection in September 2024. Based on that response, he recommended
proceeding with cervical radiofrequency ablations (“RFAs”), which could
be provided twice yearly as supportive care. Dr. Gupta acknowledged that
by 2024 Martha did not report neck pain and that her predominant
complaint was right shoulder pain. He explained that patients may focus
on their most severe pain source and opined that Martha “still had neck
pain,” even if she did not report it during that visit. He further testified that
the bursitis was anatomically separate from the cervical facets implicated
by Martha’s prior MBBs, which he conceded was not related to the

3
 ARVALLO v. MASTER/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

November 2022 industrial incident. Ultimately, he admitted that he could
not identify any “new, additional, or previously undiscovered” condition
attributable to the November 2022 injury.

¶7 Dr. Qing-Min Chen testified for defendants. After
performing an independent medical examination and reviewing the
medical records, including the December 2023 cervical computed
tomography scan (“CT scan”), he concluded that Martha’s cervical findings
reflected only age-related degenerative changes and that no objective
change had occurred since the June 2023 closure. Because the CT scan
revealed no facet pathology, the condition RFAs are designed to treat, he
opined that RFAs were not medically indicated. He further testified that
the treatment for the industrial injury involved only right shoulder and
trapezius strains, and that Martha had no new, additional, or previously
undiscovered condition causally related to the work injury.

¶8 The ALJ found Dr. Chen’s opinions more probably correct
and well-founded. The ALJ emphasized the absence of facet pathology on
imaging, the lack of neck pain at the time of the Independent Medical
Examination (“IME”), and the degenerative nature of the cervical CT scan
findings. The ALJ concluded that Martha’s industrial injury was limited to
a resolved right shoulder and trapezius strain and that her current neck
complaints were unrelated to the work incident. Because the record did not
establish a new, additional, or previously undiscovered condition arising
since claim closure, the ALJ denied reopening and later affirmed that
decision on review. This statutory special action followed.

DISCUSSION

¶9 An applicant seeking to reopen an industrial claim bears the
burden of proving the existence of a “new, additional or previously
undiscovered” condition causally related to the prior industrial injury.
A.R.S. § 23-1061(H). An increase in subjective pain cannot support
reopening unless it is accompanied by an objective change in physical
findings. Id.; see also Polanco v. Indus. Comm’n, 214 Ariz. 489, 490 ¶ 1 (App.
2007). On review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the ALJ’s award and must affirm if the decision is supported by
any reasonable theory of the evidence. Pac. Fruit Express v. Indus. Comm’n,
153 Ariz. 210, 214 (1987).

¶10 Travelers argues that Martha has waived appellate review
because her opening brief does not comply with ARCAP 13(a). While the
brief discusses certain key facts, it does not contain citations to the record

4
 ARVALLO v. MASTER/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

or legal authority. Though the brief does not comply with ARCAP 13, we
exercise our discretion not to treat those deficiencies as a waiver and
address the merits of the ALJ’s decision. See State v. Smith, 203 Ariz. 75, 79
¶ 12 (2002); In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64 ¶ 6 (2013).

I. The ALJ Did Not Err in Adopting Dr. Chen’s Medical Opinions.

¶11 Martha argues the ALJ erred by agreeing with Dr. Chen’s
testimony to deny her petition to reopen. She argues that the imaging from
2023 demonstrates cervical abnormalities she believes were caused by her
November 2022 work injury. She argues that her care involved multiple
providers, such as Dr. Gupta, and it was improper to rely on the opinion of
a single expert.

¶12 When medical experts dispute whether such a condition
exists, the ALJ must resolve the conflict, and we do not disturb the ALJ’s
resolution unless it was “wholly unreasonable.” Gamez v. Indus. Comm’n,
213 Ariz. 314, 316 ¶ 15 (App. 2006) (quoting Ortega v. Indus. Comm’n, 121
Ariz. 554, 557 (App. 1979); see also Pima Cmty. Coll. v. Indus. Comm’n, 137
Ariz. 137, 140 (App. 1983). We do not weigh the evidence, but instead view
it in the light most favorable to sustaining the award. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp.
v. Indus. Comm’n, 158 Ariz. 95, 98-99 (App. 1988).

¶13 While Drs. Gupta and Chen differed about whether Martha’s
original 2022 injury involved the neck, they did not disagree about the
dispositive question: whether Martha developed any new or previously
undiscovered condition causally related to the 2022 industrial injury after
the June 2023 claim closure. Dr. Gupta testified he could not identify any
such new condition. He acknowledged Martha reported no neck
symptoms in 2024, that his cervical exam showed no new findings, and that
the subdeltoid bursitis was anatomically unrelated to the cervical facets
implicated in her earlier MBBs. Although Dr. Gupta continued to
recommend cervical RFAs based on her prior 2023 response to diagnostic
blocks, he confirmed that this reflected supportive care, not the discovery
of new pathology since claim closure.

¶14 Dr. Chen testified that the December 2023 CT scan showed
only chronic, age-related cervical spondylosis and that these findings were
unchanged from Martha’s pre-closure imaging. He explained that RFAs
are appropriate only when facet-joint pathology is present, yet the imaging
contained no such abnormalities. In fact, the December 2023 radiology
report specifically described an “[u]nremarkable appearance of the lamina,
facet joints, and spinous processes.” Based on his review and examination,

5
 ARVALLO v. MASTER/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

Dr. Chen opined that Martha’s industrial injury consisted solely of a right
shoulder strain and trapezius strain, both of which had resolved by the June
2023 claim closure, and that there was no new, additional, or previously
undiscovered condition causally related to the November 2022 incident.

¶15 Given this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that no
qualifying post-closure condition existed. The ALJ found Dr. Chen’s
opinions “more probably correct and well-founded,” relying on (1) the
absence of facet pathology to support RFA treatment, (2) Martha’s lack of
neck symptoms at the IME, and (3) the 2023 imaging, which showed only
degenerative changes rather than new findings. The ALJ also noted that
Dr. Gupta himself agreed that the 2024 bursitis diagnosis was unrelated to
the industrial injury and that he could not identify a new condition
attributable to the November 2022 incident.

¶16 The ALJ reasonably resolved the medical conflict. Dr. Chen’s
testimony provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the conclusion that
Martha did not establish a qualifying new or previously undiscovered
condition as required by A.R.S. § 23-1061(H). Although Martha disagrees
with that assessment, “the findings of the administrative law judge and the
Commission’s award must be affirmed if supported by any reasonable
theory of the evidence.” Magma Copper Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 139 Ariz. 38,
49 (1983). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings here. We thus
conclude that the ALJ’s denial of the petition to reopen is reasonably
supported by the evidence.

CONCLUSION

¶17 We affirm.

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

6