UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
BARNEY C. VERDUGO,
Petitioner
v.
AWARD AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
B R O W N, Judge:
2
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
BACKGROUND
3
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
4
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
A. Supportive Care
5
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
17 The ALJ resolved the conflict between Dr. Steingarts and Dr.
Ledermans opinions about the need for supportive care benefits in favor
of Dr. Ledermans opinion as being more probably well-founded and
correct.
18 Verdugo argues that the ALJ should not have adopted Dr.
Ledermans opinion because Dr. Lederman met with him only once while
Dr. Steingart submitted plenty of evidence to support his need for
supportive care. He also disputes that he had a pre-existing rotator cuff
tear because he did not have shoulder pain prior to his injury and could
engage in heavy work. In response, Respondents submit that Dr.
Ledermans opinion was based on his review of Verdugos medical records
as well as an IME and that it was not wholly unreasonable for the ALJ to
adopt Dr. Ledermans opinion.
6
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
7
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
that if the ALJ adopted Dr. Ledermans opinion, the jobs listed in Mark
Kelmans report would be suitable and reasonably available.
8
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
C. Apportionment
9
VERDUGO v. PHOENIX UNION et al.
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION
10