Roman Moreno v. Me Global Inc.
Opinion
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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
ROMAN MORENO, Petitioner,
v.
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
ME GLOBAL INC., Respondent Employer,
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF CONNECTICUT, Respondent Insurance Carrier.
No. 1 CA-IC 25-0035
FILED 09-02-2026
Special Action – Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20221820131 Carrier Claim No. 042-CB-FWQ3396-N The Honorable Kenneth Joseph Hill, Administrative Law Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Roman Moreno, Phoenix Petitioner
Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Afshan Peimani Counsel for Respondent
ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS Decision of the Court
Lundmark, Barberich, La Mont & Puig, P.C., Phoenix By David T. Lundmark Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Andrew Gaona joined.
F U R U Y A, Judge:
¶1 Roman Moreno seeks review of an award entered by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, finding he did not “forthwith” report his injury to his employer, ME Global, as required by law. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Moreno worked as a production specialist for ME Global, a mining equipment manufacturer. Moreno alleged that on February 1, 2022, while lifting a metal bar weighing 40–70 pounds, he “heard something pop” in his lower back. He rated his pain as a 5 on a scale of 0–10. Moreno testified that he promptly informed his supervisor and explained his injury to other individuals throughout the next month. On June 14, 2022, Moreno informed a manager in the human resources department of his injury, prompting the manager to take Moreno to a doctor.
¶3 Moreno filed a worker’s compensation claim on July 1, 2022, which was denied by ME Global’s insurance carrier, Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut. Moreno requested a hearing and two hearings were held on March 24, 2023 and June 29, 2023. In August 2023, the ALJ entered an award denying Moreno’s claim because he failed to timely report his injury. In October 2024, we set aside the award and remanded for further proceedings because the ALJ failed to make a finding on whether Moreno’s delay in reporting was excused. Moreno v. Indus. Comm’n, 1 CA-IC 23-0032, 2024 WL 4459306, at *3 ¶ 13 (Ariz. App. Oct. 10, 2024) (mem. decision).
¶4 The ALJ held two more hearings on April 23, 2025 and June 5, 2025. Following these hearings, the ALJ again entered an award denying Moreno’s claim because he failed to forthwith report his injury, prejudicing
ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS Decision of the Court
ME Global. In coming to this conclusion, the ALJ found Moreno’s testimony was not credible and his narrative unsupported by the record.
¶5 Moreno filed a request for review. In October 2025, the ALJ affirmed the award. Moreno then filed this statutory special action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-120.21(B) and 23-951(A).
DISCUSSION
¶6 Moreno argues the ALJ erred in finding his report was untimely and unexcused because the ALJ ignored Moreno’s testimony and “critical medical evidence.”
¶7 We will affirm the ALJ’s award if it is supported by “sufficient competent evidence[.]” Pacific Fruit Exp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 153 Ariz. 210, 214 (1987). “We do not weigh the evidence, but consider it in the light most favorable for sustaining the award.” Id.
¶8 When an employee is injured at their place of work, the employee must “forthwith report the accident and the injury resulting from the accident to the employer[.]” A.R.S. § 23-908(E). Prompt reporting allows the employer to “ensure that the injured employee receives early medical treatment . . . prevent[ing] aggravation of the injury[,]” and to have “an opportunity to investigate the accident close in time to its occurrence.” Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 345, 347 ¶ 5 (2002). Failure to promptly report an injury precludes compensation unless the ALJ excuses the employee’s failure. A.R.S. § 23-908(F).
¶9 The employee bears the burden of proving “facts establishing an excuse once a failure to comply with the statute has been shown.” Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 216 (citation modified). An untimely report may be excused if (1) the employee “had no way of knowing either that the injury had occurred or that the injury was causally related to employment”; or (2) “the employer has not been prejudiced by the employee’s lack of diligence in reporting the injury.” Douglas Auto & Equipment, 202 Ariz. at 347 ¶ 7. An employee may establish a lack of prejudice by showing that the “injury was not aggravated by the employer’s inability to provide early diagnosis and treatment, and, further, by showing that the employer was not hampered in making his investigation and preparing his case.” Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 215–16 (quoting Magma Copper v. Indus. Comm’n, 139 Ariz. 38, 43– 44 (1983)).
ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS Decision of the Court
I. The ALJ Did Not Err in Finding Moreno Did Not Forthwith Report His Injury.
¶10 The ALJ found Moreno did not inform ME Global of his February injury until June 14, 2022, and thus failed to forthwith report it. Moreno argues the ALJ erred by failing to consider his testimony that he reported his injury immediately after it occurred and by ignoring “critical medical evidence.” But this argument asks us to find Moreno’s testimony credible—when the ALJ did not—and reweigh the medical evidence, neither of which we will do. See Henderson-Jones v. Indus. Comm’n, 233 Ariz. 188, 191 ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (“We recognize that the ALJ is the sole judge of witness credibility.”); Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 214 (“We do not weigh the evidence . . .”). Thus, we will affirm unless the court’s finding is unsupported by sufficient evidence. Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 214.
¶11 After determining Moreno’s testimony was not credible, the ALJ found “based on the entire record, the only fair inference is that [Moreno] never told his employer, or anyone associated with his employer, that he had even possibly sustained an injury attributable to his employment until June 14, 2022.” This finding is supported by multiple witnesses who testified they “never discussed any injury with [Moreno]” or did not learn of Moreno’s injury until June 2022. Thus, because there is sufficient supporting evidence, the ALJ did not err in finding that Moreno did not forthwith report his injury to ME Global.
II. The ALJ Did Not Err in Finding Moreno’s Untimeliness Was Not Excused.
¶12 The ALJ also found Moreno’s failure to forthwith report was not excused because ME Global was prejudiced “in terms of the opportunity to promptly investigate the matter.” Moreno contends the ALJ’s finding of prejudice is unsupported by the record because the HR manager testified “that he was able to properly and fully investigate [Moreno’s] injury.” True, the manager testified that in June 2022 he was “able to complete a full investigation” into Moreno’s claim. But the manager also testified the delay in reporting affected his ability to properly investigate, noting he could not interview the supervisor Moreno alleged he informed immediately after he was injured, as that supervisor had left the company and was unavailable. It was the ALJ’s role to weigh these competing statements and we will not reweigh them on appeal. See Henderson-Jones v. Indus., 233 Ariz. at 191 ¶ 9; Pacific Fruit Exp., 153 Ariz. at 214. Because the ALJ found ME Global could not properly investigate
ROMAN MORENO v. ME GLOBAL INC/TRAVELERS Decision of the Court
Moreno’s claim—a finding supported by testimony in the record—Moreno did not meet his burden of proving a lack of prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roman Moreno v. Me Global Inc. (Roman Moreno v. Me Global Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.