Cassiero v. ICA/Sedona/AZ School

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CONI CASSIERO, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ) ARIZONA, ) ) Respondent, ) ) SEDONA OAK CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL ) DISTRICT, ) ) Respondent Employer, ) ) ARIZONA SCHOOL ALLIANCE, ) ) ) Respondent Carrier. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/28/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-IC 10-0003 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Special Action Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. No. 20082-270412 Carrier Claim No. 2008014579 Administrative Law Judge Robert F. Retzer AWARD AFFIRMED Coni Cassiero Petitioner In Propria Persona Sedona The Industrial Commission of Arizona By Andrew F. Wade, Chief Counsel Attorney for Respondent Phoenix Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C. By K. Casey Kurth Attorneys for Respondent Employer Sedona Oak Creek Joint Unified School District Phoenix D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission of Arizona ( ICA ) award and decision upon review, finding petitioner, Coni Cassiero, without permanent injury and her condition medically administrative law medical evidence. stationary. judge s ( ALJ ) Cassiero resolution challenges of the conflicting Because the award and decision upon review are reasonably supported by the evidence, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In June 2008, while Cassiero was employed as a payroll manager for Sedona-Oak Creek Joint Unified School District, she injured her neck, back, face, and wrists when she fell walking up a flight of stairs. She filed a workers compensation claim and soon thereafter began receiving treatment from Dr. David Leheneauer, a chiropractor. From June 2008 until January 2009, she received treatment from Dr. Leheneauer several times per week. Her claim was closed in February 2009, after it was determined that she had no permanent impairment additional supportive care was necessary. decision and requested a hearing. 2 and that no Cassiero appealed the ¶3 At the ensuing hearing, Terrence Montgomery, a nurse practitioner testified. who is board certified in family practice, He opined that Cassiero suffered from significant weakness in her wrists, which included a loss of grip and some loss of range of motion. He diagnosed Cassiero with pain in the limbs and recommended further treatment and evaluation by an orthopedist or a hand specialist. Montgomery explained that his he findings were subjective, electromyogram or take x-rays. as did not conduct an Instead, he measured Cassiero s grip strength by having her encircle his fingers with her hands and squeeze. He admitted that a physical therapist or an orthopedist could render a more clinical diagnosis. ¶4 medicine, examined Kevin Ladin, M.D. rehabilitation, Cassiero and is and board-certified pain reviewed her in management. medical physical Dr. records. Ladin He testified that Cassiero characterized herself as being impaired in essentially every area of her life, though her findings on examination were essentially normal. any pain related behaviors. Dr. Ladin did not observe A focused examination of her neck and back and upper extremities showed virtually no abnormal findings whatsoever. She had a full range of motion. ¶5 Jamar® Using a dynamometer, 3 Dr. Ladin tested Cassiero s grip strength three times. 1 separate The grip strength on her left hand registered as two, zero, and zero, respectively; her right-hand grip strength was two, zero, and one, respectively. were not Dr. Ladin testified that the scores of zero physiologically based. Such scores occur when a patient has provided virtually no effort whatsoever, or the patient is paralyzed. He diagnosed Cassiero with muscular strain of the neck, upper back, and wrists, and concluded that her condition was stationary and did not require further most probably treatment. ¶6 The ALJ found Dr. correct and well founded. Ladin s opinions Cassiero was awarded benefits from June 2008 until February 2009. The award was affirmed in a December 17, 2009 decision upon review. ¶7 We have jurisdiction over Cassiero s timely petition for special ( A.R.S. ) action sections pursuant to 12-120.21(A)(2) Arizona Revised Statutes (2003), 23-951(A) (1995), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10. DISCUSSION ¶8 Cassiero argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she did not require further treatment. 1 She contends that the The test requires a patient to grip the device as hard as he or she can; an analog gauge measures the amount of force exerted by the patient. 4 conflicting medical opinions should have been resolved in her favor. ¶9 We consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining an award by the ICA and will uphold the decision if there is reasonable evidence to support it. Jaramillo v. Indus. Comm n, 203 Ariz. 594, 596, ¶ 6, 58 P.3d 970, 972 (App. 2002). ¶10 Competing We do not reweigh the evidence. medical Dr. stationary and that she was no support. In contrast, Mr. Montgomery and evaluation by however, qualified evaluation of opined his that was hearing. treatment Ladin testimony a in condition at the condition was need of medical recommended further specialist. recommendation Cassiero s presented Cassiero s longer Id. by Mr. Montgomery, stating was based that his solely on subjective testing. ¶11 The ALJ found Dr. correct and well founded. resolve conflicts disturb that in the resolution Ladin s testimony most probably It is the ALJ s responsibility to medical unless evidence, it is and wholly we will not unreasonable. Gamez v. Indus. Comm n, 213 Ariz. 314, 316, ¶ 15, 141 P.3d 794, 796 (2006) (citation omitted). witnesses is a matter Moreover, the credibility of peculiarly within trier of fact in an administrative matter. the province of the Anamax Mining Co. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 147 Ariz. 482, 486, 711 P.2d 621, 625 5 (App. 1985). Because reasonable evidence supports the ALJ s finding, we uphold the decision. CONCLUSION ¶12 For the reasons stated above, we affirm. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge 6

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.