Opinion
1 CA-IC 20-0040
06-08-2021
RANDY HOLT, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, VIKING SPECIALTY SVC, Respondent Employer, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY CO, Respondent Carrier
Randy Holt, Tolleson Petitioner Employee Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Gaetano J. Testini Counsel for Respondent Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston PLLC, Phoenix By Stephen C. Baker Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Special Action - Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20182-400139 Carrier Claim No. None The Honorable Colleen Marmor, Administrative Law Judge.
Randy Holt, Tolleson Petitioner Employee
Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Gaetano J. Testini Counsel for Respondent
Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston PLLC, Phoenix By Stephen C. Baker Counsel for Respondent Employer and Carrier
Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAILEY, JUDGE
¶1 This case presents a question of compensability for injuries that occurred after a suspected exposure event during a demolition project. Because Petitioner Randy Holt has failed to show a causal link between the alleged exposure and his maladies, we affirm the Industrial Commission of Arizona's ("ICA") determination of non-compensability.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In July 2018, Holt was a demolition supervisor on a project for Respondent Viking Specialty Services. The project was the demolition of an old florist shop with a commercial walk-in freezer. Holt had a crew of four others working with him. Concerning the freezer, the plan was to cut it into pieces that could be carried out in a bin. On Friday, July 13, Holt and the crew began cutting up the freezer when several of them, including Holt, started feeling sick and began vomiting. Eventually, everyone on the crew fell ill. Holt stopped the work and called his manager at Viking. Viking shut the job down for the day and performed environmental testing at the job site the following Monday. However, the findings were negative for unacceptable levels of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, or hydrogen sulfide. The testing did not include testing for "asbestos-containing materials, lead-based products, or any other hazardous or controlled materials." However, the testers observed mold in the building.
¶3 Meanwhile, Holt was ill that weekend and went to the emergency room on Sunday, July 15. His reported symptoms were muscle cramps, dizziness, headache, and abdominal pains. Following a medical evaluation, Holt was told that he had an elevated bilirubin level, given medications, and sent home.
High bilirubin levels can result in jaundice. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 197 (28th ed. 1994).
¶4 Holt and his crew returned to the job site on Tuesday, July 17. They removed all the windows and doors in the building to get better ventilation. The crew also worked on removing the roof so that they were working outside. Once again, Holt and another crew member started feeling ill, vomiting, and experienced excessive sweating. Viking had them checked by a job site medical provider for heat exhaustion or food poisoning and then sent them home for the rest of the week. Viking ordered environmental testing at the site on July 17. Again, the findings were negative.
¶5 Holt continued to experience symptoms. He saw his family doctor on July 20, but the doctor found no symptoms related to toxin exposure. He referred Holt to a specialist to address the elevated bilirubin level. Holt returned to work on July 23, and the crew finished demolishing the florist shop. They began demolishing the building next to it, which had been a convenience store that also had a freezer. On August 1, Holt began feeling ill again and went home early. On August 2, he tried to supervise the work from his truck but had to quit early due to feeling ill. On August 6, Holt was back in the emergency room with jaundice. This time, he was admitted to the hospital for elevated bilirubin, where he stayed until August 10. While at the hospital, Holt tested negative for toxins, and the doctors focused their evaluation and care on the high bilirubin level. Holt was discharged with a diagnosis of bilirubin metabolism disorder (hyperbilirubinemia).
¶6 Holt filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Respondent Carrier Starr Indemnity & Liability Company denied the claim, and Holt requested a hearing, at which both lay witnesses and medical experts testified.
¶7 Holt testified at the hearing about the events on the job site. He testified that he was in good physical shape and offered that he had just begun intense physical training and dieting to compete in an obstacle course at about the same time as the work events. He believes he was exposed to something on the job site that caused the symptoms. He also testified that he believes that he has migraines and nerve damage from the exposure. Holt presented testimony from two crew members who also fell ill during the demolition. They confirmed the events as described by Holt.One of them noted that when he began the work on July 13, he found a warning about the use of formaldehyde in the building materials. He informed both Holt and Viking about this and continued the demolition.
The general manager of Viking also testified and confirmed the events.
¶8 The ICA administrative law judge ("ALJ") also heard expert medical testimony from Holt's treating physician Dr. David Nagata and from Dr. Daniel Brooks, a toxicologist who performed an Independent Medical Examination ("IME") at the request of the carrier. Dr. Nagata testified that he saw Holt in July 2018, August 2018, and January 2019. At his last visit in January 2019, four months before his testimony, Dr. Nagata referred Holt to a neurologist for the headaches he was experiencing. Dr. Nagata noted that testing for toxin exposure was negative. Finally, Dr. Nagata testified that he would defer to Dr. Brooks regarding whether Holt had been exposed to a known toxin. Dr. Nagata did not link Holt's continuing complaints and symptoms to the work events.
¶9 Dr. Daniel Brooks is the medical director of the Phoenix Poison Control Center and teaches toxicology and emergency medicine at a medical school. He reviewed the medical records and examined Holt. He explained that Holt's elevated bilirubin levels suggest Gilbert's Syndrome, a rare genetic condition that can be triggered by intensive physical activity. He acknowledged that the intensive physical training that Holt began around the time of the work events could have contributed to such a trigger. He noted there was no evidence of toxin exposure, including carbon monoxide exposure. He also ruled out mold exposure as a cause of Holt's problems. In the end, Dr. Brooks opined that Holt had suffered an acute onset of Gilbert's Syndrome. He testified that Gilbert's Syndrome causes nausea, vomiting, fatigue, abdominal pain, and elevated bilirubin levels.
¶10 The ALJ found Holt to be a credible witness. However, she gave more weight to Dr. Brooks's medical opinion about the cause of Holt's medical problems than she did to Dr. Nagata's opinion. Thus, she found Holt had failed to show that his injuries arose from his employment with Viking. She summarily affirmed that conclusion after an administrative review request filed by Holt.
¶11 We have jurisdiction over Holt's timely special action pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 12- 120.21(A)(2), 23-951(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10(A).
DISCUSSION
¶12 In reviewing workers' compensation awards, we defer to the administrative law judge's factual findings but independently review legal conclusions. Young v. Indus. Comm'n, 204 Ariz. 267, 270, ¶ 14 (App. 2003). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining an award, we will affirm the ALJ's decision unless there is no reasonable basis for it. Lovitch v. Indus. Comm'n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002). The burden is on the injured employee to establish each element of a claim. Yates v. Indus. Comm'n, 116 Ariz. 125, 127 (App. 1977). An injury is compensable if it occurs "by accident arising out of and in the course of . . . employment." A.R.S. § 23-1021. To establish a compensable claim, an injured worker must prove the injury suffered was causally related to the industrial accident, "which must be proved by competent medical evidence when the results of the incident are not apparent to a layman." Yates, 116 Ariz. at 127 (collecting cases). When an injury would not be apparent to a layperson, expert medical testimony must establish the causal connection between a claimant's medical condition and the industrial accident. See Gutierrez v. Indus. Comm'n, 226 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 5 (App. 2010), aff'd in part, 226 Ariz. 395 (2011).
¶13 Here, there is no conflict between the medical opinions about whether Holt was exposed to a toxin on July 13 or afterward. Dr. Nagata deferred to Dr. Brooks on that question, and Dr. Brooks firmly opined there was no evidence of any such exposure. Instead, Dr. Brooks opined that Holt suffered from a pre-existing condition called Gilbert's Syndrome, and that the onset of symptoms was likely triggered by Holt's non-work-related physical activity. Dr. Nagata did not have a firm theory about the cause of Holt's health conditions. We cannot fault the ALJ for giving more weight to Dr. Brooks's opinion that the industrial event was not a cause of Holt's medical problems. On this record, that choice was reasonable.
¶14 In his appellate brief, Holt makes no legal arguments. Instead, he reviews the events that he believes caused his condition. However, we do not reweigh the evidence on appeal. Simpson v. Indus. Comm'n, 189 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1997). Just like the ALJ, we do not doubt that Holt is suffering the symptoms he claims. What has not been shown is that his employment caused those symptoms.
CONCLUSION
¶15 We affirm.