Substantial justice requires that the resolver of testimonial conflicts, for either expert or non-expert witnesses, directly hear all conflicting testimony.
In Yant, the applicant, an airline attendant, sustained an admitted workplace injury by rolling her right ankle in October 2022, then in December 2022, she rolled the same ankle while at home, and then in March 2023, while working, she experienced pain in her right ankle when she had to jump over a coworker who had fallen in the aisle of a plane. The provider under the claim, Dr. Jason Lake, indicated that the injury caused and was exacerbated in December 2022, and that the March 2023 incident also aggravated the existing injury.
Dr. William Leonetti performed an IME in April 2023 and concluded that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and was stationary with no permanent impairment. This conclusion formed the basis of the respondents’ closure of the claim. The applicant applied for hearing to challenge the closure.
The presiding ALJ was ALJ Foster, who conducted hearing sessions for the applicant and Dr. Lake, but was not present during most of Dr. Leonetti’s direct testimony and cross examination, which was overseen by ALJ Rushforth.
Dr. Leonetti’s session time allotment ran out before cross examination was concluded, so it was rescheduled. The rescheduled portion was overseen by ALJ Foster and only consisted of the rest of the cross examination with no questions on redirect. During direct examination of Dr. Leonetti, an issue arose when Dr. Leonetti testified that he understood another provider’s medical record’s use of the word “equivocal” to mean “equal.” During the subsequent session where cross examination was completed, the applicant’s counsel requested that the other provider be called to clarify his use of the term “equivocal,” which was denied.
ALJ Foster found in favor of the respondents and did not address whether she reviewed the portion of Dr. Leonetti’s testimony for which she was absent. The applicant appealed.
The Court concluded that denial of the applicant’s request to call the provider as a witness to clarify the meaning of his use of “equivocal” was an abuse of discretion and a denial of substantial justice. The Court emphasized that continuances, for reasons such as when a party seeks to introduce more evidence, are permitted so that substantial justice will be achieved and all facts of the case can be fully considered. The Court also pointed to the fact that the presiding ALJ was not present for Dr. Leonetti’s entire testimony, which could have been the basis for setting aside the award.
Yant v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, No. 1 CA- IC 24-0057, 2025 WL 2355438 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2025).
Want to know more? Contact Maura Healy at mhealy@pollartmiller.com
