Knutson v. trader/indemnity ( 2023 )

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
LYNN KNUTSON,
Petitioner Employee,
v.
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA,
Respondent,
TRADER JOES,
Respondent Employer,
INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA,
Respondent Insurance Carrier.
No. 1 CA-IC 22-0010
FILED 4-11-2023
Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20191920010
Carrier Claim No. 1903142384WC
The Honorable Kenneth Joseph Hill, Administrative Law Judge
AFFIRMED
APPEARANCES
Lynn Knutson, Scottsdale
Petitioner Employee
Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent
Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont & Slavin, P.C., Phoenix
By Javier A. Puig
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Respondent Insurance Carrier
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
W I L L I A M S, Judge:
¶1 Lynn Knutson appeals the Industrial Commission of
Arizona’s (“ICA”) award/decision to close her workers’ compensation
claim for lack of permanent impairment. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Knutson worked for Trader Joe’s. In March 2019, while
loading groceries into a customer’s SUV, Knutson sustained a head injury
when the rear hatch door came down on her head. Knutson continued
working, although she had a headache, and shortly after that dropped a
case of bottled water. Trader Joe’s sent Knutson to urgent care, where she
was diagnosed with a head contusion and concussion.
¶3 In the following weeks, Knutson developed speech problems,
vision problems, light sensitivity, and other problems symptomatic of
possible neurological impairment. She had an acquaintance who was a
retired emergency room physician and medical educator, Mark Olsky,
M.D., who became concerned about her condition a few weeks after the
incident. Dr. Olsky conducted a medical examination and found that
Knutson had sustained a significant brain injury. He referred her for further
medical treatment. Knutson’s workers’ compensation claim was accepted.
¶4 In July 2019, Dr. Jody Reiser, M.D., a neurologist, conducted
an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”). Dr. Reiser concluded that
Knutson had reached maximum medical improvement “in regard to her
neurological state” and did not have a permanent neurological impairment.
The following month, Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America issued a
2
KNUTSON v. TRADER/INDEMNITY
Decision of the Court
notice closing Knutson’s claim. Knutson requested a hearing to challenge
that conclusion.
¶5 An ICA administrative law judge (“ALJ”) conducted a
hearing in which he reviewed Knutson’s post-incident medical records as
well as evaluations from several medical and psychological specialists,
including three IMEs. To testify on her behalf, Knutson called Dr. Olsky,
rehabilitation optometrist Roberto Esposito, O.D., clinical
neuropsychologist Amy Knapp, Ph.D., and speech pathologist Teresa
Brobeck, Ph.D.
¶6 Dr. Olsky testified about his relationship with Knutson and
contrasted her condition before and after the head injury. He also described
his medical examination of her that led to his conclusion that she had
suffered a significant brain injury. He testified that she needed ongoing
active medical care.
¶7 Dr. Esposito performed tests on Knutson and found ocular
conditions consistent with post-traumatic head injury visual syndrome. Dr.
Esposito attributed those conditions to the March 2019 workplace incident.
He provided Knutson with vision therapy and released her from treatment
in September 2020.
¶8 Dr. Brobeck assessed Knutson’s speech issues and diagnosed
her with “acquired/adult-onset dysfluency.” Dr. Brobeck declined to offer
an opinion as to the cause of that condition.
¶9 Finally, Dr. Knapp performed neuropsychological
evaluations of Knutson in 2019 and 2021. In 2019, Dr. Knapp noted that
Knutson’s symptoms were consistent with post-concussion syndrome. In
2021, Dr. Knapp believed Knutson had improved, and that any cognitive
injury had resolved. In Dr. Knapp’s opinion, Knutson’s injuries were a
result of the workplace incident. Dr. Knapp could not identify a
neuropsychological explanation for the ongoing problems Knutson
described, but thought other medical professionals should consider a
diagnosis of somatoform disorder.
¶10 Trader Joes/Indemnity called several specialists to testify: J.
Michael Powers, M.D., a neurologist; James Youngjohn, Ph.D., a
neuropsychologist; John Walker, Psy.D., a neuropsychologist who had
provided supportive treatment to Knutson in 2019, and Dr. Reiser.
¶11 Dr. Powers performed an IME in October 2020. He testified
there was no evidence that the head injury Knutson sustained from the
3
KNUTSON v. TRADER/INDEMNITY
Decision of the Court
incident caused any physical damage that would account for her ongoing
complaints. He found no organic basis for her reported symptoms.
¶12 Dr. Youngjohn also performed an IME in October 2020. He
diagnosed Knutson with a somatoform disorder – specifically conversion
disorder with neurological manifestations. He did not relate her condition
to the workplace injury.
¶13 Dr. Reiser performed an IME in 2019 and wrote addendums
for that examination in both 2019 and 2020. Dr. Reiser stated that Knutson’s
presentation was nonorganic and possibly psychiatric. Dr. Reiser denied
any continuing neurological injury from the workplace incident. She also
suspected a somatoform disorder.
¶14 Finally, the ALJ noted that Dr. Walker did not test Knutson
but assessed her so that he could provide supportive care. The ALJ found
that Dr. Walker concluded Knutson suffered from a somatoform disorder
and that her symptoms were psychological.
¶15 The ALJ weighed the evidence and found the opinions of
Trader Joe’s/Indemnity’s specialists “more probably correct and well
founded.” He concluded that Knutson “did not sustain a
psychological/neuropsychological injury as a result of the industrial
incident,” and that by August 2019, Knutson was medically stationary and
the claim was properly closed with no permanent impairment. Knutson
requested administrative review, which was denied without further
comment. This statutory special action review followed.
DISCUSSION
¶16 In her briefs, Knutson primarily argues the ALJ improperly
weighed the testimony and evidence. She also argues the ALJ erred by
denying her requested rebuttal evidence. Finally, she argues the ALJ failed
to make adequate findings of fact. We address each argument in turn.
I. Competing Witness Testimony
¶17 In reviewing findings and awards of the ICA, we defer to the
factual findings of the ALJ but review questions of law de novo. Young v.
Indus. Comm’n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270, ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (as amended). We
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the ALJ’s
award, Lovitch v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002), and
will not disturb the ALJ's findings unless the conclusions cannot be
“supported on any reasonable theory of evidence.” Phelps v. Indus. Comm’n,
4
KNUTSON v. TRADER/INDEMNITY
Decision of the Court
155 Ariz. 501, 506 (1987). To prevail on appeal, Knutson must show that no
reasonable evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s findings and
that the ALJ’s choice between possible inferences was wholly unreasonable.
She has not done so.
¶18 Knutson’s arguments about the weight to give the evidence,
including her attempts to impeach certain witnesses and argue the
superiority of other witnesses’ credentials, are essentially requests for us to
re-weigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Simpson v. Indus. Comm’n,
189 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1997) (appellate courts do not re-weigh the
evidence). We also will not consider on appeal evidence that the ALJ did
not have as part of the record. At the end of her amended opening brief,
Knutson recites a multi-page statement from Dr. Olsky, intended to rebut
the testimony of Dr. Youngjohn. But that multi-page statement was not part
of the record before the ALJ. Our task is to determine whether the record
supports the ALJ’s award. We conclude that it does.
II. Rebuttal Testimony
¶19 At the last hearing session, which included the continuation
of Dr. Youngjohn’s testimony, Knutson’s counsel requested that Dr. Olsky
attend the session and submit rebuttal testimony afterward. Counsel stated
that rebuttal was necessary because Knutson bore the burden of proof and
because Dr. Youngjohn was testifying beyond his expertise, making
unwarranted conclusions. The ALJ denied rebuttal, but Dr. Olsky was
allowed to listen to Dr. Youngjohn’s testimony. Knutson argues on appeal
that the ALJ erred by denying her request for rebuttal testimony from Dr.
Olsky. We disagree.
¶20 Knutson’s argument is based on an alleged procedural error.
Section 23-941(F) provides that the ALJ “is not bound by common law or
statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure and
may conduct the hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial
justice.” A.R.S. § 23-941(F). Thus, the procedural standard is substantial
justice. See Ohlmaier v. Indus. Comm’n, 161 Ariz. 113, 117 (1989) (noting that
the objective of an ICA hearing is substantial justice). We cannot conclude
that Knutson was denied substantial justice by being denied admission of
Dr. Olsky’s rebuttal testimony. As the ALJ noted to Knutson’s counsel, the
ALJ can determine whether an expert witness is opining beyond their area
of expertise and consider that when weighing the evidence. Knutson has
shown no error.
5
KNUTSON v. TRADER/INDEMNITY
Decision of the Court
III. Lack of Factual Findings
¶21 Finally, Knutson argues the ALJ did not make the required
findings of fact to support his award. But an ALJ’s lack of findings does not
necessarily invalidate an award, so long as this court can determine the
factual basis for the ALJ’s legal conclusions. See Post v. Indus. Comm’n, 160
Ariz. 4, 7 (1989). Regardless, because Knutson’s argument was first raised
in her reply brief, she has waived it on appeal. Wasserman v. Low, 143 Ariz.
4, 9 n. 4 (App. 1984) (considering issue first raised in a reply brief to be
abandoned on appeal).
CONCLUSION
¶22 The record contains substantial evidence to support the ICA’s
award/decision. The award is affirmed.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
6