SAYEGH v. TECHNIQUEX/COLORADO
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 HANNA SAYEGH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ) ARIZONA, ) ) Respondent, ) ) TECHNIQUEX, ) ) Respondent Employer, ) ) COLORADO CASUALTY, ) ) Respondent Carrier. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/10/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-IC 12-0076 Department B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Special Action Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20111-360704 Carrier Claim No. 504469010 Paula R. Eaton, Administrative Law Judge AWARD AFFIRMED _______________________________________________________________ Hanna Sayegh, In Propria Persona Phoenix Andrew F. Wade, Chief Counsel The Industrial Commission of Arizona Attorney for Respondent Phoenix Klein, Doherty, Lundmark, Barberich & LaMont, P.C. By R. Kent Klein Attorneys for Respondent Employer/Respondent Carrier Phoenix ________________________________________________________________ N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 In this special action review of an Industrial Commission of Arizona award and decision upon review, petitioner Hanna Sayegh argues the administrative law judge ( ALJ ) should not have found his medical condition stationery permanent impairment effective August 29, 2011. this argument, Sayegh first asserts the ALJ with no In support of should not have accepted and relied on the testimony of Irwin Shapiro, M.D., a board-certified specialist in orthopedics, who evaluated him at the request of respondents, and instead, should have adopted and relied on the testimony of Sanjay Patel, M.D., a board-certified specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation, evaluated Sayegh at the request of his counsel. ¶2 Dr. January 12, Shapiro 2012. examined Based on Sayegh his on We disagree. August examinations who 1, of 2011 and Sayegh and review of Sayegh s medical records, Dr. Shapiro diagnosed Sayegh with degenerative disc disease at multiple levels of the spine. At the hearing, he explained the industrial injury had temporarily aggravated the degenerative disc disease but it had resolved as of August 29, 2011 with no permanent impairment. 2 ¶3 Although conclusions, Dr. when responsibility of Patel as disagreed here, resolving an ALJ, conflicts in with Dr. Shapiro s charged with the medical testimony, adopts one expert s opinion over another, we will not disturb that resolution unless it is wholly unreasonable. Gamez v. Indus. Comm n, 213 Ariz. 314, 316, ¶ 15, 141 P.3d 794, 796 (App. 2006) (citation omitted). When reviewing the appropriateness of an ALJ s ruling, we are not allowed to weigh the evidence; we are obligated to consider it in the light most favorable to sustaining the award. Perry v. Indus. Comm n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398, 542 P.2d 1096, 1097 (1975). the ALJ s adoption of the Pursuant to these authorities, medical evidence presented by respondents through Dr. Shapiro was not wholly unreasonable, and we are not at liberty to reject also appears to argue the ALJ s factual determinations. ¶4 Sayegh we should consider additional medical evidence which he appears to have submitted to the ALJ after the ALJ issued the award and decision upon review. This material is not properly before us, and our review is limited to the evidence presented to the ALJ at the hearing. Cf. Torres v. Indus. Comm n, 16 Ariz. App. 404, 407, 493 P.2d 1209, 1212 (1972) (upon review, appellate court will not consider affidavit submitted after the close of evidence and not subject to cross-examination); Morris v. Indus. Comm n, 3 Ariz. 3 App. 393, 396, 414 P.2d 996, 999 (1966) ( [M]atters placed in the record after the hearing may not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision based upon that hearing, absent the consent of all parties . . . . ). ¶5 Finally, Sayegh appears to argue we should set aside the award because the ALJ was not the same ALJ who decided he had sustained a compensable injury. Compensability and entitlement to benefits are separate issues and can be decided in separate proceedings before different ALJs. See Indus. Indem. Co. v. Indus. Comm n, 162 Ariz. 503, 508, 784 P.2d 709, 714 (App. 1989). ¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the award. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge 4
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.
