ALICIA GARCIA v. ICA; REVEILLE MGMT.; TECHNOLOGY INS. CO.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO ALICIA GARCIA, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, REVEILLE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Respondent Employer, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent Insurer. No. 2 CA-IC 2015-0012 Filed June 10, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 10(k). Special Action – Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20142020628 Insurer No. 12655151 Jonathan Hauer, Administrative Law Judge AWARD AFFIRMED GARCIA v. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court COUNSEL Alicia Garcia, Casa Grande In Propria Persona The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Andrew F. Wade Counsel for Respondent Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson, P.C., Phoenix By Jerry T. Collen and Kevin R. Myer Counsel for Respondents Employer & Insurer MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 In this statutory special action, petitioner employee Alicia Garcia challenges the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) finding her medical condition stationary, with no permanent impairment, and awarding her temporary disability benefits. We have jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s award and decision pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(2) and 23-951, as well as Rule 10, Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. ¶2 On review, Garcia has not presented this court with clear issues or arguments that are supported by any legal authority, as required by Rule 13(a)(6) and (7), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., and Rule 10(k), Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. She also has failed to provide “appropriate references to the portions of the record on which [she] relies.” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). For factual support, her opening brief refers to various appended materials. Even if such a procedure were permitted in this division, Garcia’s references fail to indicate whether and “where each item is located in the record.” 2 GARCIA v. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13.1(a), (c)(1); see Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(d). “Parties who choose to represent themselves ‘are entitled to no more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel’ and are held to the same standards as attorneys with respect to ‘familiarity with required procedures and . . . notice of statutes and local rules.’” In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008), quoting Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53, 386 P.2d 649, 652 (1963). In the absence of a properly developed argument, we find any issue related to the award waived on review. See Polanco v. Indus. Comm’n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2, 154 P.3d 391, 393 n.2 (App. 2007). ¶3 We affirm the award and decision of the ALJ. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
