In Knutson, the claimant injured herself while loading groceries in a customer’s SUV by hitting her head on the hatch door. The claimant developed speech and vision problems and light sensitivity. A family friend, who was also an ER doctor, performed an evaluation and concluded she had a significant brain injury. After an IME by a neurologist, it was determined that the claimant had reached medically stationary with no permanent impairment. Respondents filed a closing notice and the claimant objected and requested a hearing.
The claimant was evaluated by three of her own physicians as well as three IMEs for Respondents. The claimant’s three physicians concluded that she had neurological damage and diagnosed her with somatoform disorder, which is a psychological condition that manifests physical symptoms related to an incident. Respondents’ IMEs determined that the claimant’s symptoms were not related to the work injury, but a separate psychiatric condition.
The ALJ concluded that Respondents’ experts were more credible and closed the claim. The claimant appealed claiming that she should have been allowed to rebut Respondents’ evidence, was improperly denied that opportunity, and that one of Respondents’ IMEs had testified outside his expertise. The Arizona Court of Appeals (the Court) disagreed.
In its findings, the Court stated that in order for the claimant to prevail on appeal, she would have to show that no reasonable evidence existed to support the ALJ’s findings and the ALJ’s inferences between the competing opinions were unreasonable.
Arizona Court of Appeals
Phelps v. Indus. Comm’n, 155 Ariz. 501, 506 (1987). Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the ALJ is “not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure…” A.R.S. § 23-941(F). It noted that the ALJ was allowed to determine whether an expert was exceeding their area of expertise in testifying and makes its own findings on credibility. As the ALJ in this case had done. The ALJ’s Order was affirmed.
Knutson v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., No. 1 CA-IC 22-0010, 2023 WL 2885405 (Ariz. Ct. App. April 11, 2023).
Want to know more? Contact Megan Bornmann at [email protected] or 877-259-5693.
