Enriquez v. Industrial Commission - Court of Appeals Division One (Memo Decision)

Case Summary

Facts:

• Samuel Enriquez, the petitioner, suffered two industrial injuries in 2018 while working as a butcher and cook for different employers. ​

• The first injury in February resulted in a 1% permanent impairment to his right major hand (index finger). ​

• The second injury in June, while working for Cardenas Markets dba Los Altos Ranch Markets, resulted in a 5% permanent impairment of his left lower extremity (ankle) after multiple surgeries. ​

• The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued an award for permanent partial disability in December 2021 but found Enriquez had no loss of earning capacity (LEC) as he had no medical restrictions precluding him from doing similar work. ​

• Enriquez protested the award, leading to a hearing where the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found his testimony not credible and gave more weight to the respondents' medical expert, Dr. Jon Zoltan, over Enriquez's expert, Dr. Paul Ledesma. ​

Issues:

1. Whether the ALJ erred in finding Enriquez's testimony not credible. ​

2. Whether the ALJ made inadequate findings.

3. Whether the ALJ erred in giving more weight to the respondents' medical expert over Enriquez's expert. ​

Holding:

• The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the ICA's award and decision, concluding that Enriquez had no LEC stemming from his permanent impairment.

Three Most Important Points:

1. Credibility Determination: The ALJ found Enriquez's testimony not credible and gave more weight to the respondents' medical expert, Dr. Zoltan, who concluded that Enriquez's ankle injury had resolved by March 2020 with no need for work restrictions. ​

2. Expert Testimony: The ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including Dr. Zoltan's opinion that Enriquez could return to his previous job without restrictions, which outweighed Dr. Ledesma's testimony about Enriquez's work limitations. ​

3. Procedural Conduct: The court found that the ALJ properly conducted the hearing, including the use of videoconference testimony, and that Enriquez's objections to the format were untimely and did not warrant setting aside the award.

#WoCo Case Law Updates