BOURAIMA v. ICA; TOHONO O'ODHAM NURSING; COPPERPOINT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO ABOU G. BOURAIMA, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, TOHONO O’ODHAM NURSING CARE AUTHORITY, Respondent Employer, COPPERPOINT WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent Insurer. No. 2 CA-IC 2015-0002 Filed August 26, 2015 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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). Special Action – Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20130770412 Insurer No. 13W00389 Jacqueline Wohl, Administrative Law Judge AWARD AFFIRMED BOURAIMA v. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court COUNSEL Abou G. Bouraima, Tucson In Propria Persona The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Andrew F. Wade Counsel for Respondent Copperpoint Western Insurance Company, Tucson James B. Stabler, Chief Counsel By Joseph N. Lodge Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurer MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 In this statutory special action, petitioner employee Abou Bouraima challenges the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) finding his medical condition stable and stationary, with no permanent impairment or need for supportive care, and closing his claim. 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, Bouraima 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 claims, for example, that he “strongly disagree[s with] a decision [of] the insurance physician” and that certain “body language show[ed] the partiality” of the ALJ. “Parties who choose to represent themselves ‘are entitled to no more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel’ and are 2 BOURAIMA v. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court 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 The award and decision are affirmed. 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.
