Aguilera v. ICA/3-G/Seabright

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 MODESTO AGUILERA, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 3-G CONSTRUCTION, Respondent Employer, SEABRIGHT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent Carrier. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/25/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-IC 10-0080 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Special Action--Industrial Commission ICA CLAIM NO. 20082-960355 CARRIER NO. PH000476207 Administrative Law Judge Steven W. Pogson AWARD AFFIRMED Modesto Aguilera Petitioner, In Propria Persona Phoenix Andrew Wade, Chief Counsel Phoenix The Industrial Commission of Arizona Attorney for Respondent Klein, Lundmark, Barberich & La Mont, P.C. by R. Todd Lundmark and Eric Slavin Attorneys for Respondent Employer and Carrier Phoenix B A R K E R, Judge ¶1 Pro se Petitioner Modesto Aguilera ( Aguilera ) seeks special action review of an Industrial Commission of Arizona ( ICA ) award and decision upon supportive medical maintenance. review for a denial of For the following reasons, we affirm. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review ¶2 Statutes We have jurisdiction ( A.R.S. ) sections pursuant to 12-120.21(B), Arizona Revised 23-951(A), Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10. and In reviewing findings and awards of the ICA, we defer to the factual findings of the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ), 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 a light most favorable to upholding the ALJ s award. Lovitch v. Indus. Comm'n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16, 41 P.3d 640, 643 (App. 2002). 2 Procedural and Factual History ¶3 the Aguilera fell off a roof and injured his back during course of his September 30, 2008. employment as a construction worker on This injury was deemed compensable, but his benefits were later terminated. Aguilera, who at the time was represented by counsel, requested a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1061(J). He alleged that respondents failed to provide the supportive maintenance benefits he required for his injury. ¶4 Based on testimony that the pain medication Aguilera had been taking was medically unnecessary, the ALJ found that Aguilera was not entitled benefits at this time. to supportive medical maintenance Aguilera filed a request for review of this decision; upon review, the decision was affirmed. Aguilera now requests this court to re-examine the ALJ s determination. Discussion ¶5 In his opening brief, Aguilera requests: (1) two years of unpaid worker s compensation claims, (2) reimbursement for medical and medical-related travel expenses, (3) reimbursement for the money his insurer paid for his medical expenses (because he alleges compensation), these (4) should [a have finding been of] covered 100% by disability worker s [and a monthly payment of] [$]2,236.18, and (5) a compensation of 2 3 million dollars. Although these are Aguilera s requests, he makes no specific reference to how the ALJ erred in considering his case, which is the only appropriate issue for this court s consideration. ¶6 ALJ s Even assuming that Aguilera meant to argue that the award was unsupported by the evidence, as respondents suggest, substantial evidence exists to support the award of the ALJ. Mengel v. Indus. Comm'n, 18 Ariz. App. 541, 542, 504 P.2d 72, 73 (1972) ( [A]n appellate court will affirm awards of the Industrial Commission when there is any substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision. ). ¶7 Here, Dr. Peairs, a pain management specialist who had evaluated Aguilera twice, testified that in [Aguilera s] case, not only are these medicines not indicated, [but she believed that they were] doing him more harm than good. She noted that her recommendation was given not because [she didn t] believe him or [she thought] poorly of him, but because she wanted to help him and medications in she believed question. he would Her report do better further without explained the that Aguilera himself reported that the medications were ineffective. She wrote: I strongly products be recommend that the opioid tapered and discontinued, due 4 both to the bizarre nonorganic nature of the complaints, the absence of complaints or findings reasonably attributed to the industrial injury, the possibility that these medications are contributing to his cognitive and mood issues, and his own reports that these medications are ineffective. ¶8 Another doctor, Dr. Beghin, an orthopedic surgeon, stated in his report that he would expect that any intermittent pain associated with the status-post fracture state and associated with vigorous activity would be most appropriately . . . treated with over-the-counter analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. He further noted that healed fractures of this nature rarely require chronic daily opioid management. ¶9 Thus, even assuming Aguilera meant to argue that the ALJ s decision was unsupported by the evidence, this argument fails. ¶10 Finally, the court has received two letters Aguilera filed September 27, 2011 and October 4, 2011. from It is not procedurally appropriate for the court to respond to such letters. 5 Conclusion ¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /s/ _____________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, 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.