Bonelli v. cruisers/travelers
1 CA-IC 15-0072
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Martha Bonelli worked as a hostess/ice cream server and alleged she received electrical shocks in the restaurant kitchen causing numbness/tingling in her left arm/hand.
- She filed a workers’ compensation claim; the carrier denied it and Bonelli requested a hearing before an ALJ at the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA).
- Evidence included Bonelli’s testimony, the restaurant manager’s testimony, a repairman’s inspection testimony, medical records, an independent medical examination (IME), and a neurodiagnostic test report.
- The neurodiagnostic report recorded Bonelli’s statement that she had been electrocuted at work but did not offer an opinion linking workplace exposure to her symptoms.
- The IME physician found no objective neurological injury attributable to employment and reaffirmed that conclusion after reviewing the neurodiagnostic report.
- The ALJ concluded Bonelli failed to prove her injury arose out of and in the course of employment; the ALJ declined to address unrelated workplace complaints. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensability: whether Bonelli’s symptoms arose out of and in the course of employment | Bonelli argued electrical shocks at work caused her left upper-extremity symptoms | Employer/carrier pointed to IME and lack of medical opinion tying symptoms to workplace shocks | Court held Bonelli failed to prove causation; medical evidence did not link symptoms to a workplace incident, so injury non-compensable |
| Scope of adjudication: whether ALJ should consider other workplace complaints (e.g., conditions, manager misconduct) | Bonelli urged the ALJ to consider poor conditions and manager’s misconduct as part of her claim | ICA/ALJ maintained jurisdiction is limited to compensability under Workers’ Compensation Act | Court held ALJ properly limited proceedings to compensability and declined to review extraneous employment complaints |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamez v. Indus. Comm’n, 213 Ariz. 314 (App. 2006) (appellate review standard: deferential review of ALJ factual findings, independent review of legal conclusions)
- Royall v. Indus. Comm’n, 106 Ariz. 346 (1970) (defines "arise out of" and "in the course of" employment)
- Raymer v. Indus. Comm’n, 18 Ariz. App. 184 (1972) (where causal connection is not apparent, expert medical testimony is required)
- Hackworth v. Indus. Comm’n, 229 Ariz. 339 (App. 2012) (ALJ must accept uncontradicted medical testimony; appellate courts will not disturb reasonable ALJ findings)
- Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397 (1975) (ALJ has discretion to resolve evidentiary conflicts)