Martinko v. Am fence/old Rep
1 CA-IC 16-0009
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Martinko injured his cervical spine in a 1994 work accident and filed a workers’ compensation claim accepted for benefits.
- In 1996 the parties settled; the settlement (approved by the ICA) included stipulations that Martinko suffered no psychiatric/psychological condition related to the injury and no reduction in monthly earning capacity.
- Pursuant to the approved settlement, Martinko received $70,000 and the ICA issued an award reflecting no loss of earning capacity.
- In November 2014 Martinko petitioned for rearrangement, asserting his earning capacity had declined due to changes since the 1996 award.
- After hearings, an ALJ denied rearrangement; the ICA denied review and Martinko sought special action relief from the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1996 award can be relitigated as to psychiatric injury | Martinko: he actually sustained a work-related psychological injury and the settlement decision was wrong | ICA/Employer: the settlement-approved award is final and bars relitigation of issues decided then | Held: Settlement-approved award is final; Martinko may not relitigate those issues |
| Whether rearrangement is warranted for changed physical condition causing reduced earning capacity | Martinko: his physical condition changed (myelopathy) after 1996, reducing ability to work | Employer/Carrier: medical testimony showed no objective change since 1996; prior findings control | Held: No sufficient evidence of objective change; rearrangement denied |
| Whether rearrangement is warranted absent physical change (reduction in earning capacity) | Martinko: functional limitations and medications impair ability to work as quality control inspector | Employer/Carrier: labor market analysis and medical evidence show continued ability to work in that role | Held: Evidence supports ALJ finding no reduction in earning capacity |
| Admissibility/weight of out-of-proceeding testimony (Dr. Dohring) | Martinko: 2008 testimony supports new myelopathy finding | Employer/Carrier: Dr. Dohring did not testify in rearrangement proceedings; ALJ credited in‑record testimony (Dr. Beghin) | Held: ALJ properly weighed live evidence; out-of-record testimony insufficient to prove change |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 102 (App. 2002) (standard of review: view evidence favorably to uphold ICA award)
- Young v. Indus. Comm’n, 204 Ariz. 267 (App. 2003) (ALJ factual findings deferred to; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Johnson-Manley Lumber v. Indus. Comm’n, 159 Ariz. 10 (App. 1988) (ALJ may draw reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Gallegos v. Indus. Comm’n, 144 Ariz. 1 (App. 1985) (final awards bind parties; cannot relitigate issues decided in prior award; standards for rearrangement)
- Santiago v. Indus. Comm’n, 193 Ariz. 369 (App. 1998) (an order approving a settlement is equivalent to an award)
- Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 20 Ariz. App. 432 (1973) (ALJ assesses witness credibility and evidence weight)