Roman Moreno v. Me Global Inc.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROMAN MORENO, Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

ME GLOBAL INC., Respondent Employer,

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF CONNECTICUT,
Respondent Insurance Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 25-0035
FILED 09-02-2026

Special Action – Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20221820131
Carrier Claim No. 042-CB-FWQ3396-N
The Honorable Kenneth Joseph Hill, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Roman Moreno, Phoenix
Petitioner

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

ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont & Puig, P.C., Phoenix
By David T. Lundmark
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Andrew Gaona joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Roman Moreno seeks review of an award entered by an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) of the Industrial Commission of Arizona,
finding he did not “forthwith” report his injury to his employer, ME Global,
as required by law. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Moreno worked as a production specialist for ME Global, a
mining equipment manufacturer. Moreno alleged that on February 1, 2022,
while lifting a metal bar weighing 40–70 pounds, he “heard something pop”
in his lower back. He rated his pain as a 5 on a scale of 0–10. Moreno testified
that he promptly informed his supervisor and explained his injury to other
individuals throughout the next month. On June 14, 2022, Moreno informed
a manager in the human resources department of his injury, prompting the
manager to take Moreno to a doctor.

¶3 Moreno filed a worker’s compensation claim on July 1, 2022,
which was denied by ME Global’s insurance carrier, Travelers Indemnity
Co. of Connecticut. Moreno requested a hearing and two hearings were
held on March 24, 2023 and June 29, 2023. In August 2023, the ALJ entered
an award denying Moreno’s claim because he failed to timely report his
injury. In October 2024, we set aside the award and remanded for further
proceedings because the ALJ failed to make a finding on whether Moreno’s
delay in reporting was excused. Moreno v. Indus. Comm’n, 1 CA-IC 23-0032,
2024 WL 4459306, at *3 ¶ 13 (Ariz. App. Oct. 10, 2024) (mem. decision).

¶4 The ALJ held two more hearings on April 23, 2025 and June 5,
2025. Following these hearings, the ALJ again entered an award denying
Moreno’s claim because he failed to forthwith report his injury, prejudicing

2

ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

ME Global. In coming to this conclusion, the ALJ found Moreno’s testimony
was not credible and his narrative unsupported by the record.

¶5 Moreno filed a request for review. In October 2025, the ALJ
affirmed the award. Moreno then filed this statutory special action. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Sections
12-120.21(B) and 23-951(A).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Moreno argues the ALJ erred in finding his report was
untimely and unexcused because the ALJ ignored Moreno’s testimony and
“critical medical evidence.”

¶7 We will affirm the ALJ’s award if it is supported by “sufficient
competent evidence[.]” Pacific Fruit Exp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 153 Ariz. 210, 214
(1987). “We do not weigh the evidence, but consider it in the light most
favorable for sustaining the award.” Id.

¶8 When an employee is injured at their place of work, the
employee must “forthwith report the accident and the injury resulting from
the accident to the employer[.]” A.R.S. § 23-908(E). Prompt reporting allows
the employer to “ensure that the injured employee receives early medical
treatment . . . prevent[ing] aggravation of the injury[,]” and to have “an
opportunity to investigate the accident close in time to its occurrence.”
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 345, 347 ¶ 5 (2002).
Failure to promptly report an injury precludes compensation unless the ALJ
excuses the employee’s failure. A.R.S. § 23-908(F).

¶9 The employee bears the burden of proving “facts establishing
an excuse once a failure to comply with the statute has been shown.” Pacific
Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 216 (citation modified). An untimely report may be
excused if (1) the employee “had no way of knowing either that the injury
had occurred or that the injury was causally related to employment”; or (2)
“the employer has not been prejudiced by the employee’s lack of diligence
in reporting the injury.” Douglas Auto & Equipment, 202 Ariz. at 347 ¶ 7. An
employee may establish a lack of prejudice by showing that the “injury was
not aggravated by the employer’s inability to provide early diagnosis and
treatment, and, further, by showing that the employer was not hampered
in making his investigation and preparing his case.” Pacific Fruit Exp., 153
Ariz. at 215–16 (quoting Magma Copper v. Indus. Comm’n, 139 Ariz. 38, 43–
44 (1983)).

3

ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

I. The ALJ Did Not Err in Finding Moreno Did Not Forthwith Report
His Injury.

¶10 The ALJ found Moreno did not inform ME Global of his
February injury until June 14, 2022, and thus failed to forthwith report it.
Moreno argues the ALJ erred by failing to consider his testimony that he
reported his injury immediately after it occurred and by ignoring “critical
medical evidence.” But this argument asks us to find Moreno’s testimony
credible—when the ALJ did not—and reweigh the medical evidence,
neither of which we will do. See Henderson-Jones v. Indus. Comm’n, 233 Ariz.
188, 191 ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (“We recognize that the ALJ is the sole judge of
witness credibility.”); Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 214 (“We do not weigh
the evidence . . .”). Thus, we will affirm unless the court’s finding is
unsupported by sufficient evidence. Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 214.

¶11 After determining Moreno’s testimony was not credible, the
ALJ found “based on the entire record, the only fair inference is that
[Moreno] never told his employer, or anyone associated with his employer,
that he had even possibly sustained an injury attributable to his
employment until June 14, 2022.” This finding is supported by multiple
witnesses who testified they “never discussed any injury with [Moreno]”
or did not learn of Moreno’s injury until June 2022. Thus, because there is
sufficient supporting evidence, the ALJ did not err in finding that Moreno
did not forthwith report his injury to ME Global.

II. The ALJ Did Not Err in Finding Moreno’s Untimeliness Was Not
Excused.

¶12 The ALJ also found Moreno’s failure to forthwith report was
not excused because ME Global was prejudiced “in terms of the
opportunity to promptly investigate the matter.” Moreno contends the
ALJ’s finding of prejudice is unsupported by the record because the HR
manager testified “that he was able to properly and fully investigate
[Moreno’s] injury.” True, the manager testified that in June 2022 he was
“able to complete a full investigation” into Moreno’s claim. But the
manager also testified the delay in reporting affected his ability to properly
investigate, noting he could not interview the supervisor Moreno alleged
he informed immediately after he was injured, as that supervisor had left
the company and was unavailable. It was the ALJ’s role to weigh these
competing statements and we will not reweigh them on appeal. See
Henderson-Jones v. Indus., 233 Ariz. at 191 ¶ 9; Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at
214. Because the ALJ found ME Global could not properly investigate

4

ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS
Decision of the Court

Moreno’s claim—a finding supported by testimony in the record—Moreno
did not meet his burden of proving a lack of prejudice.

¶13 Moreno further contends the ALJ erred in finding his delay
was not excused because he did not know he had a compensable injury
until June 18, 2022. But Moreno relies on medical evidence, which the ALJ
weighed and considered, and we will not reweigh that evidence. See Pacific
Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 214. Further, this argument contradicts Moreno’s
own testimony. Moreno testified that on February 1, 2022, he “heard
something pop” in his lower back while lifting a metal bar at work and he
felt immediate pain. Thus, by Moreno’s own testimony, he knew an injury
had occurred and that it was related to his employment. Because Moreno
did not meet his burden of proving a lack of prejudice to ME Global, the
ALJ did not err in finding that Moreno’s failure to forthwith report was not
excused.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm.

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

5