Morley v. Salvation army/salvation Army

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOAN MORLEY, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

SALVATION ARMY, Respondent Employer,

SALVATION ARMY, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 22-0034
FILED 4-11-2023

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20200630260
Carrier Claim No. 30204503278-0001
The Honorable Janet Weinstein, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Joan Morley, Bullhead City
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent
Norton & Brozina, P.C., Phoenix
By Christopher S. Norton
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Respondent Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 In this case, we affirm an award of the Industrial Commission
of Arizona (“ICA”) closing Joan Morley’s claim because she is medically
stationary and requires no further active treatment for her work injury. The
award also finds that she has suffered no permanent impairment. We have
reviewed the evidence and find that it supports the award.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Morley was injured at work in February 2020 when she
tripped and fell, scraping her hands, knees, and legs, in a parking lot while
taking out the trash. Her workers’ compensation claim was accepted, and
she received treatment for a right knee contusion with joint pain and lower
back pain for several months. In January 2021, insurer Sedgwick CMS had
Dr. Anthony Theiler, an orthopedic surgeon, review Morley’s medical
records. He found that, along with a right knee contusion, Morley had been
diagnosed with scoliosis and degenerative disc disease, which were pre-
existing conditions unrelated to, and neither aggravated nor exacerbated
by, the work injury. Dr. Theiler concluded that Morley’s knee injury had
resolved and that any back problems were not due to the work injury. He
denied that she needed further treatment or had a permanent impairment.
Based on Dr. Theiler’s opinion, Sedgwick closed the claim. Morley
protested, and the case was set for a hearing.

¶3 At the hearing, Dr. Theiler testified in support of his
conclusions from his records review. Morley called her treating
chiropractor, Dr. Tyler Travis, D.C., to testify. Dr. Travis testified that he
treated Morley from March 2020 to August 2020 and then recommended
physical therapy going forward because she had “plateaued.”
Additionally, he had provided the maximum amount of chiropractic
treatment advised for her injury by the Occupational Disability Guidelines

2
 MORLEY v. SALVATION ARMY/SALVATION ARMY
Decision of the Court

(“ODG”), which sets treatment standards for workers’ compensation cases
in Arizona. Arizona Administrative Code R20-5-1301 (adoption of ODG for
medical treatment and services). He believed that her chiropractic
treatments were needed due to the work injury, which he felt either caused
or exacerbated her pre-existing conditions. But his testimony was clear that
she had reached maximum medical improvement for chiropractic care.

¶4 The ICA Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who presided
over the hearing issued an award concluding that Morley was medically
stationary with no permanent impairment. Morley requested
administrative review, and the ALJ affirmed the award. This special action
review followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(2) and 23-948.

DISCUSSION

¶5 In reviewing the findings and awards of the ICA, we defer to
the ALJ’s factual findings. Avila v. Indus. Comm’n, 219 Ariz. 56, 57, ¶ 2 (App.
2008). On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
upholding the award. Id. The ALJ has the primary responsibility to resolve
conflicts in medical opinion evidence. Carousel Snack Bar v. Indus. Comm’n,
156 Ariz. 43, 46 (1988); see also Kaibab Indus. v. Indus. Comm’n, 196 Ariz. 601,
609, ¶ 25 (App. 2000) (reviewing court is bound by ALJ’s resolution of
conflicting testimony when reasonable evidence supports the ALJ’s
conclusion). We defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicting evidence and
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).

¶6 The burden of proof is on the injured worker to show that her
condition has not become stationary and that she is entitled to continuing
benefits. Stephens v. Indus. Comm’n, 114 Ariz. 92, 94 (App. 1977). This court
has said that “the term ‘stationary’ refers to that time when 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
that her condition is not static. Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Indus. Comm’n, 199
Ariz. 532, 535, ¶ 12 (App. 2001).

¶7 Here, the ALJ was presented with two medical opinions about
Morley’s work injury status. Both experts agreed that she had reached

3
 MORLEY v. SALVATION ARMY/SALVATION ARMY
Decision of the Court

maximum improvement and needed no further active treatment for the
work injury; thus, her condition from the work injury was stationary.
Given that testimony, the ALJ had no option but to conclude that Morley’s
claim was properly closed.

¶8 Morley reargues the evidence in her appeal to this court and
describes her current condition. Her failure to provide competent medical
evidence that her condition resulting from the work injury was not
stationary is fatal to her claim. Because the ALJ’s decision is supported by
two medical experts who testified that her work-injury condition would not
further improve, we must affirm.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm the award.

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

4