Cuevas v. Growers/Majestic - Memorandum Decision - Arizona Court of Appeals - June 24, 2025 ​

Facts: ​ In 2010, Gloria Cuevas sustained injuries to her back, wrist, and knee while working for Growers. ​ Majestic Insurance Co. accepted her worker’s compensation claim, providing medical treatment and temporary disability benefits. ​ Her claim was closed in 2012 with a permanent partial impairment in her knee, entitling her to $7,573.20 in benefits. ​ The claim was reopened in 2022 for a total knee replacement, and Cuevas was awarded temporary disability benefits for 2020–2022. ​ In 2024, Cuevas filed three petitions for investigation under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 23-1061(J), seeking compensation for a failure to authorize knee surgery, pain and suffering, lost wages, and verification of the 2012 check. ​ The Industrial Commission of Arizona dismissed all three petitions, citing lack of evidence, ineligibility for pain and suffering claims, and the legal doctrine of laches barring investigation into the 12-year-old check. ​ Cuevas appealed the dismissal. ​

Issue(s):

1. Did the Industrial Commission err in dismissing Cuevas’s petitions for investigation into her worker’s compensation claims? ​

2. Did Cuevas’s appeal comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP) 13? ​

Holding: The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission’s dismissal of Cuevas’s petitions. ​ The court also found that Cuevas’s appeal failed to comply with ARCAP 13, as her opening brief lacked legal arguments, citations, and references to the record, thereby waiving all appealable issues. ​

Key Takeaways:

1. Pain and suffering are not compensable under Arizona worker’s compensation law. ​

2. The legal doctrine of laches can bar claims involving significant delays, such as investigating a 12-year-old check. ​

3. Appellants must comply with ARCAP 13 by providing a clear argument, legal citations, and references to the record. ​ Failure to do so may result in waiver of appealable issues. ​

4. Unrepresented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys in Arizona courts. ​

URL to Read Full Decision: 1 CA-IC 24-0047 CUEVAS v. GROWERS.pdf