Sherman vs. Industrial Commission (Memo Decision)

Facts:

Jay Sherman, an employee of Conn’s, Inc., claimed he suffered a compensable injury while wrapping a mattress for delivery.

 ​ Sherman reported numerous health issues resulting from the fall, including pain, occipital neuralgia, and a mild concussion.

The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) denied his claim, leading Sherman to request a hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed testimonies, medical records, and video footage of the incident, ultimately finding Sherman’s account exaggerated and inconsistent with the evidence.

Issue:

Whether Jay Sherman sustained a compensable injury while working for Conn’s, Inc., and if his fall aggravated any pre-existing medical conditions.

Holding: The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the ICA’s decision, agreeing with the ALJ that Sherman did not sustain a compensable injury or aggravate any pre-existing conditions due to the fall.

Key Takeaways:

1. Burden of Proof: The injured worker must prove the injury is causally related to the industrial accident through expert medical testimony when the cause is not readily apparent.

2. Credibility and Evidence: The ALJ is the sole judge of witness credibility and must resolve conflicting evidence.

   Sherman’s testimony was found unreliable and inconsistent with video evidence.

3. Medical Testimony: Both doctors testified that Sherman did not put in effort during examinations, and the ALJ found Dr. Gendy’s medical opinion more credible than Dr. Singh’s.

4. Pre-existing Conditions: An injury is compensable if it aggravates a pre-existing condition, but Sherman failed to provide medical evidence showing such aggravation.

5. Conflict of Interest Claims: Sherman’s claims of conflict of interest against Dr. Gendy were unsupported and did not establish a legal basis to set aside the award.