Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Atkins v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

December 10, 2013

DANIEL ATKINS, Petitioner
v.
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, THE HEARD MUSEUM, INC., Respondent Employer, STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE c/o TRAVELERS INSURANCE, Respondent Carrier.

Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Special Action - Industrial Commission ICA CLAIM NO. 20112-550421 CARRIER CLAIM NO. 127CBEGN6706N Deborah A. Nye, Administrative Law Judge

Daniel Atkins, Phoenix Petitioner In Propria Persona.

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Andrew F. Wade Counsel for Respondent ICA.

Lester & Norton, P.C., Phoenix By Steven C. Lester Counsel for Respondent Employer/Carrier.

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Lawrence F. Winthrop, Presiding Judge.

¶1 This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission of Arizona ("ICA") Award and Decision Upon Review denying reopening. Two issues are presented on appeal:

(1) Whether the administrative law judge ("ALJ") denied the petitioner employee ("claimant") a full and fair hearing; and
(2) Whether the ALJ erred by finding the claimant failed to present sufficient medical evidence to support reopening.

Because we find the claimant received a fair hearing and failed to meet his burden of proving a new, additional, or previously undiscovered condition causally related to his September 4, 2011 industrial injury, we affirm the award.

I. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(2) and 23-951(A), and Rule 10 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.[1] In reviewing findings and awards of the ICA, we defer to the ALJ's factual findings, but review questions of law de novo. Young v. Indus. Comm'n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270, ¶ 14, 63 P.3d 298, 301 (App. 2003). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.