In Villegas, the applicant filed a request for hearing protesting compensability. There was a dispute in the medical experts’ opinions as to whether the applicant suffered an aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative lumbar spine condition or whether he had a lumbar strain / sprain. A hearing was held and the ALJ found the claim to be compensable.
When the claim was closed, the applicant also protested the claim closure. Again, there was a conflict in the expert opinions regarding the applicant’s medical diagnoses. Again, the ALJ found the applicant’s expert to be more credible and rejected claim closure. The claim was eventually closed for a second time and this time there was a dispute as to whether the applicant had permanent impairment.
During cross examination of the defendant’s expert, the physician conceded that he was not aware that his previous diagnosis of a lumbar spine strain / sprain had not been accepted by the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) during the first claim closure litigation.
Despite this fact, the expert’s opinion did not change as to permanent impairment. The ALJ found that the defendant’s expert was more credible and determined that the applicant did not have a permanent impairment to the lumbar spine. The applicant appealed this decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals (the Court).
On appeal, the applicant argued that the medical conflict between the experts about the medical diagnosis had been litigated already and was found favorable to the applicant. Therefore, that the ICA was precluded from adopting the defendant’s expert’s opinion that there was no permanent impairment for a lumbar strain / sprain.
The Court found that whether the injury was medically stationary and whether the claimant had a permanent impairment were separate determinations. The diagnosis for back injury only had preclusive effect on issues concerning the nature and causation of the injury and that permanent impairment was a separate determination. Additionally, when the defendant’s expert was confronted with the accepted diagnoses, it did not change his opinion on permanent impairment.
The court stated:
“It is the ALJ, not this court, who has the responsibility of resolving conflicts in expert opinions.”
Arizona Court of Appeals
The award was affirmed.
Villegas v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, No. 1 CA-IC-24-0030, 2025 WL 1191727 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2025).
Want to know more? Contact Megan Bornmann at mbornmann@pollartmiller.com
