MARTIN LYMAN v. ICA, SFA CONTRACTORS, SELECTIVE INSURANCE CO. OF THE SOUTHEAST (pdf)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MARTIN LYMAN, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, SFA CONTRACTORS, Respondent Employer, SELECTIVE INSURANCE CO. OF THE SOUTHEAST, Respondent Insurer. No. 2 CA-IC 2021-0005 Filed August 18, 2022 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. Act. 10(k). Special Action - Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20202390009 Insurer No. 22167401 LuAnn Haley, Administrative Law Judge AWARD AFFIRMED COUNSEL Martin Lyman, Tucson In Propria Persona LYMAN V. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Gaetano Testini, Chief Legal Counsel Counsel for Respondent Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont, & Slavin P.C., Tucson By Eric W. Slavin Counsel for Respondents Employer and Insurer MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred. B R E A R C L I F F E, Judge: ¶1 In this statutory special action, petitioner Martin Lyman challenges the Industrial Commission’s award finding his claim noncompensable, as well as the administrative law judge’s decision on review affirming that award. Lyman, who appears before this court in propria persona, does not present a coherent argument beyond stating the facts of his injury and the procedural background. He asserts in his opening brief that his “injury did in fact happen on the job site” in May 2020 and that he “tried to show evidence and it was dismissed,” but makes no other argument. He also provides no citations to the record or to any legal authorities to support his contentions. ¶2 “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 and . . . notice of statutes and local rules.’” In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13 (App. 2008) (omission in Williams) (quoting Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53 (1963)). An opening brief must provide a statement of facts “with appropriate references to the record,” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(5), it must also include an argument “with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on 2 LYMAN V. INDUS. COMM’N OF ARIZ. Decision of the Court which the appellant relies,” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A).1 Failure to provide citations to legal authorities and the record on appeal “can constitute abandonment and waiver of that claim.” Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). Due to Lyman’s failure to comply with Rule 13(a)(5) and (7), he has waived all arguments on review. ¶3 We affirm the Industrial Commission’s award and the decision on review affirming that Lyman’s claim was non-compensable. 1The Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure apply to special action reviews of Industrial Commission awards. Polanco v. Indus. Comm’n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2 (App. 2007); Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 10(k); A.R.S. § 23-951(E). 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.
