transact/imdemnity v. Beierle II

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TRANSACT CAMPUS, Petitioner Employer,

INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, Petitioner Carrier,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

MICHAEL BEIERLE II, Respondent Employee.

No. 1 CA-IC 25-0008
FILED 12-10-2025

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20231790058
Carrier Claim No. 20G36K411489
The Honorable Karen E. Karl, Administrative Law Judge

AWARD AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont & Puig, P.C., Phoenix
By Kirk A. Barberich, David T. Lundmark, Renna M. DeVoll
Counsel for Petitioner Employer and Carrier

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Afshan Peimani
Counsel for Respondent
Ahwatukee Legal Office, P.C., Phoenix
By David L. Abney
Counsel for Respondent Employee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Vice Chief Judge David D.
Weinzweig joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Petitioners Transact Campus and its workers’ compensation
insurance carrier, Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America (collectively,
“Transact”), challenge an Industrial Commission of Arizona (“ICA”) award
and decision upon review excusing Respondent Employee Michael
Beierle’s late-filed claim and finding he promptly reported his work-related
knee injury, making the injury compensable. Transact argues insufficient
evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) findings, and
the ALJ failed to make necessary written factual findings to support her
conclusions. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
ICA award. Salt River Project v. Indus. Comm’n, 128 Ariz. 541, 544-45 (1981).
On the morning of August 19, 2021, Beierle felt his knees “pop” while
working for Transact in California. By the afternoon, he told a co-worker
his knees were hurting. Beierle’s co-worker observed Beierle having
“trouble” and “a hard time” walking that day. Before his shift ended,
Beierle advised an off-site supervisor that he injured his knees and his left
knee was “burning.” The supervisor later confirmed he sent an email to
Transact’s HR department to report Beierle’s injury. The HR department
denied receiving the email.

¶3 Almost three weeks later, he saw his primary care provider.
Licensed Physician Assistant Anthony Nelson found significant left knee
swelling, provided anti-inflammation medication, and recommended an
ultrasound.

2
 TRANSACT/INDEMNITY v. BEIERLE II
Decision of the Court

¶4 A September 2021 ultrasound showed a possible meniscus
tear in the left knee. In March 2022, an MRI showed a torn meniscus, which
was later surgically repaired.

¶5 Medical records from September 2021 and March 2022 noted
Beierle was “on vacation” when the injury happened. Nelson later
amended his records at Beierle’s request to reflect that he was injured while
working. Nelson did not, however, file a report of injury with the ICA. See
Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 23-908(A) (requiring physicians to file reports
of injury for known work-related injuries).

¶6 Beierle continued to work, taking time off to go to medical
appointments, and no one from Transact contacted him about the injury. In
March 2022, he emailed a company director to say he was taking time off
for surgery on the “knee that [he] hurt” while working in California. At
that time, he told an HR representative that he had informed his supervisor
about the injury on the day it happened. The HR representative told Beierle
she “would look into it.”

¶7 Beierle next talked to HR in the summer of 2022. When
Beierle asked if HR was making progress on the claim, he was told they
were waiting to hear back from the carrier. That August, the HR
representative told him she would “call in the claim” to the workers’
compensation provider. She told Beierle the provider was having trouble
finding a claim in their system. The HR representative worked with the
carrier’s “intake person” to clarify the claim but needed more information
from Beierle. During these conversations, Beierle asked for a form to fill out
but was not provided one. He believed HR had taken responsibility for
reporting his injury claim.

¶8 Although Beierle consistently stated that his injury occurred
on August 19, he mistakenly told HR, multiple times, the injury happened
in 2020 rather than 2021. Transact employed a third-party Professional
Employer Organization (“PEO”) to handle workers’ compensation claims
and had switched PEOs between August 2020 and August 2021. Beierle’s
incorrect reporting year caused Transact to contact the wrong PEO to
process the claim. By September 2022, the appropriate PEO began to
process the claim.

¶9 In October 2022, Beierle emailed a senior claim consultant for
the carrier, noting he had received a letter stating that a factual review
indicated his claim was not work-related. Beierle questioned what facts the

3
 TRANSACT/INDEMNITY v. BEIERLE II
Decision of the Court

carrier had relied on to reach its determination. Beierle copied Transact’s
HR department on the email.

¶10 Meanwhile, although Beierle had tried to correct the injury
date with Transact’s HR department in August 2022, the parties continued
to use the incorrect August 2020 injury date. In February 2023, the carrier’s
senior claim consultant emailed Beierle (and copied Transact’s HR
department), stating Beierle’s claim was untimely and the “vacation” note
in his medical file meant the injury was not work-related. The carrier
reported that it had not formally denied the claim because the ICA had not
notified it of an existing claim and advised Beierle: “If you file [a claim with
the ICA], it will allow them to notify us and we can issue a formal denial
and from there you can appeal the denial.”

¶11 That same day, in an email to Beierle, HR explained why the
carrier was denying coverage and told him that the carrier would be
contacting him with instructions for his “next steps.” That afternoon,
Beierle emailed the carrier (and copied HR), responding that he was not on
vacation when he was injured. He also asked about the carrier’s
investigation of his claim. The record contains no subsequent
correspondence from the carrier.

¶12 In June 2023, Beierle filed his claim with the ICA, again using
the wrong injury date. By November 2023, Beierle discovered his mistake
and updated his claim with the 2021 injury date.

¶13 In July 2023, Transact issued a Notice of Claim Status denying
Beierle’s claim. Beierle requested a hearing. Transact raised two
affirmative defenses: (1) Beierle filed his claim after the statutory one-year
limitations period, and (2) Beierle did not promptly report the injury.

¶14 The ALJ conducted separate hearings on the injury accrual
date and the timeliness of Beierle’s claim. After considering the evidence
and testimony, the ALJ found Beierle’s testimony credible and concluded
his claim had accrued in March 2022. The ALJ also concluded Beierle’s late
filing was excused because she found he justifiably relied on Transact’s
representations that it would handle his claim.

¶15 Transact requested administrative review, and the ALJ
summarily affirmed her decision. Transact then filed this timely statutory
special action. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(B) and 23-
951(A).

4
 TRANSACT/INDEMNITY v. BEIERLE II
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶16 Transact argues insufficient evidence supports the ALJ’s
findings that (1) Beierle’s claim accrued in March 2022 when the MRI was
obtained, and (2) Beierle justifiably relied on Transact’s representations
about its responsibility for the claim processing. Transact also argues the
ALJ made insufficient factual findings. We disagree.

¶17 On review, this court defers to the ALJ’s factual findings,
Special Fund Div. v. Indus. Comm’n, 252 Ariz. 267, 269, ¶ 6 (App. 2021),
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the award,
Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002). The ALJ, not
this court, resolves all conflicts in the evidence and draws all warranted
inferences. Aguayo v. Indus. Comm’n, 235 Ariz. 413, 416, ¶ 11 (App. 2014).
This court also defers to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicting evidence and
will affirm the ALJ’s findings if any reasonable theory of evidence supports
them. Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398–99 (1975).

I. One-Year Filing Limitation

¶18 Absent certain exceptions, workers’ compensation claims
must be filed within one year of the date the claim accrues. See A.R.S. § 23-
1061(A). An injury accrues “when the injury becomes manifest or when the
claimant knows or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know that
the claimant has sustained a compensable injury.” Id. This requirement
may be excused if the applicant establishes justifiable reliance on a material
representation by the employer or carrier. Id.

¶19 Beierle filed his claim in June 2023, twenty-two months after
the injury occurred. Transact argues the ALJ erred by concluding the claim
accrued in March 2022, instead of in September 2021 when Nelson treated
Beierle.

¶20 Even assuming the claim accrued in September 2021, that is
not determinative because Beierle relied on representations from Transact
in delaying filing his claim. If an employee files a claim beyond the
deadline “because of justifiable reliance on a material representation” by
the employer, the ICA retains jurisdiction to hear the claim. Id. This
exception applies if the employee is lulled into inaction by the employer.
McKaskle v. Indus. Comm’n, 135 Ariz. 168, 170-71 (App. 1982). Substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that this exception applied to Beierle,
including that Beierle “consistently followed up and asked for help and
direction” from Transact.

5
 TRANSACT/INDEMNITY v. BEIERLE II
Decision of the Court

¶21 Transact next argues Beierle’s delay was not justifiable
beyond February 2023 when HR told him how to file an ICA claim. “A
party justifiably lulled into forgoing filing of a claim beyond the expiration
of a period of limitations must file his claim ‘within a reasonable time after
the circumstances inducing delay have ceased to be operational.’” Cajun
Cable Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 156 Ariz. 590, 596 (App. 1987) (quoting McKaskle,
135 Ariz. at 174). Transact argues Beierle did not file his claim within a
reasonable time after the February 2023 email. Transact also contends the
ALJ erred by failing to make specific findings about whether Beierle
exercised due diligence after February 2023. We reject these arguments.

¶22 First, in its February 2023 email, HR explained that a doctor
treating a work injury typically sends a form to the ICA, which then notifies
the employer and carrier. Because that did not happen in Beierle’s case, HR
told him that “the employee can go to the Industrial Commission of
Arizona’s website and file a form 407, which is the Worker’s Report of
Injury” and the filing of that form “will trigger a notification and at that
point we can file a formal denial.” But the email ended with HR telling
Beierle the carrier would contact him. Viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to upholding the award, the ALJ could reasonably have read the
email as informing Beierle about the process and instructing him to wait to
hear from the carrier before taking his “next steps.” This supports that
Beierle reasonably waited and then filed his claim in June 2023.

¶23 Second, the ALJ’s failure to make specific factual findings on
this issue is not reversible error. An award will be set aside for lack of
written findings if a reviewing court cannot determine whether the basis
for the award is “legally sound.” Villanueva v. Indus. Comm’n, 148 Ariz. 285,
288-89 (App. 1985) (quoting Cavco Indus. v. Indus. Comm’n, 129 Ariz. 429,
435 (1981)). Here, we can determine there is substantial evidence to support
the ALJ’s decision to accept as sufficient Beierle’s June 2023 filing.

II. Prompt Reporting of the Injury

¶24 Transact also argues Beierle’s injury report to his supervisor
in August 2021 did not meet the prompt reporting requirement because “he
did not tell Transact that he required medical treatment.” We are not
persuaded.

¶25 Workers must promptly report an accidental injury to the
employer. A.R.S. § 23-908(E). Prompt reporting allows employers to
provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment and to investigate the
circumstances of the injury. Thompson v. Indus. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 263, 266

6
 TRANSACT/INDEMNITY v. BEIERLE II
Decision of the Court

(1989). An injured worker who does not promptly report an injury cannot
receive compensation. A.R.S. § 23-908(F). An allegation that an employee
failed to promptly report an injury is treated as an affirmative defense.
Magma Copper Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 139 Ariz. 38, 45 (1983).

¶26 The parties introduced conflicting evidence on whether
Beierle reported the injury on the day it happened. We must uphold an
ALJ’s resolution of conflicting testimony when evidence reasonably
supports it. Fry’s Food Stores v. Indus. Comm’n, 161 Ariz. 119, 121 (1989).
Here, the ALJ found that Beierle reported the injury to his supervisor the
day it happened. Testimony from Beierle, who the ALJ found credible, and
two others supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Beierle told his supervisor he
was hurt while working. We will not disturb that conclusion.

¶27 To support its argument that Beierle insufficiently reported
his injury, Transact relies on Thompson, a case in which the Arizona
Supreme Court addressed “silent accident” cases—when a worker is
injured but is not sure the injury is work-related. The court stated:

The mere fact that an employee tells his employer that he does
not feel well or that he is in pain does not give the employer
reason to know that the injury might involve a potential
compensation claim. Other facts must also be present to
constitute notice to the employer.

160 Ariz. at 266. In Thompson, the supreme court set aside the ICA’s
conclusion that Thompson had failed to promptly report his injury, holding
that the employer knew the heart attack happened while Thompson was at
work while performing his duties. Id.

¶28 Here, Beierle notified his supervisor that he hurt his knees on
the day it happened, and the supervisor testified he emailed HR about the
injury. Thus, both Beierle and the supervisor believed the injury was work-
related. This put Transact on notice. The ALJ could have relied on this
evidence to conclude that Beierle’s notice was sufficient.

III. Costs on Appeal

¶29 Finally, Beierle requests an award of costs on appeal under
A.R.S. § 12-342, which authorizes recovery of costs for appeals when
judgment was given in the court below. We deny the request because that
statute does not authorize an award of costs in this matter. See L.H. v.
Culbertson ex rel. Maricopa Cnty., 257 Ariz. 459, 463, ¶ 17 (App. 2024)

7
 TRANSACT/INDEMNITY v. BEIERLE II
Decision of the Court

(denying a request for fees and costs because a special action is not an
appeal and no judgment had been obtained in a court below).

CONCLUSION

¶30 We affirm the award and decision upon review.

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

8