ALEX GARCIA v. ICA; WHOLESUM FARMS ARIZONA, LLC; COPPERPOINT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO ALEX GARCIA, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, WHOLESUM FARMS ARIZONA, LLC, Respondent Employer, COPPERPOINT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent Insurer. No. 2 CA-IC 2015-0016 Filed May 23, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. Actions 10(k). Special Action – Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20143580170 Insurer No. 13G03087 Gary M. Israel, Administrative Law Judge AWARD AFFIRMED GARCIA v. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court COUNSEL Alex Garcia, Tucson In Propria Persona The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Andrew F. Wade Counsel for Respondent Copperpoint General Insurance Company, Tucson Mark A. Kendall, Associate General Counsel By Joseph N. Lodge 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 Alex Garcia challenges the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) finding his claim was barred because he failed to file it in a timely manner. 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. Actions. ¶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. Actions. He has also failed to include “references to the portions of the record on which [he] relies.” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). “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 2 GARCIA v. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court 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 decision 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 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.
