November
2022
Newsletter
Administrative Law
Expert Counsel for Administrative and Regulatory Law, Disciplinary and Professional Licensing Issues

Have a need for critical response and legal representation in situations of licensing and certification issues, disciplinary investigation, or adverse actions affecting a professional reputation? Learn more about our administrative and regulatory law services.
Pollart Miller is pleased to announce our newest associate:

Jenna Eccles
No upcoming webinar, but you can click below to access past Webinars!
ATTORNEY SPOTLIGHT
Matthew Azer
Matthew Azer joined Pollart Miller, LLC in July of 2022. Mr. Azer has 30 years of experience as an attorney.

He has represented a wide range of clients in regulatory law, professional and occupational discipline law, workers’ compensation defense, civil litigation, criminal defense, securities law, and general administrative law. He has extensive experience in not only defending a wide variety of litigation matters, but also in hearing these matters as the Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge for the state of Colorado.
 
Matthew focuses his practice on insurance defense litigation, including representing companies and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation and liability matters, as well as representing individuals facing professional discipline from state licensing boards.
The claimant sustained a work related injury to his neck and back. The respondents admitted liability and filed a General Admission of Liability admitting to temporary total disability benefits (TTD benefits). 

The claimant reported to his authorized treating provider (ATP) that he could not work, and based on this representation, the ATP restricted the claimant from all work. The respondents continued paying TTD benefits because the ATP restricted the claimant from all work. Despite telling his ATP that he could not work, the claimant underwent a DOT physical with a different provider and did not report any issues with his neck or back. 
Colorado Win:
The claimant was a groundskeeper for a golf course and part of his duties involved cleaning drains for grass and weeds. When cleaning the drains, the claimant alleged that his feet would become wet. The claimant developed a diabetic foot ulcer, which led to a gangrene infection and several amputations of the foot . . . (more)

Colorado Win:
The claimant was offered benefits through his employment including medical, dental, vision, basic life insurance, supplemental life insurance, and long term disability benefits. These benefits were voluntary and could be waived by the employees. The claimant selected several benefits provided by his employer including supplemental life insurance and long term disability benefits . . . (more)



ARIZONA CASE LAW UPDATES


In MUSD, the claimant spent most of her career working in schools in a teaching capacity. In 2018, the claimant fell and injured her left shoulder resulting in a 7% impairment. After the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) determined that the claimant did not suffer a loss of earning capacity because of the impairment, the claimant contested the finding and two labor market experts testified at hearing. The critical issue at hearing was whether the online university from which the claimant obtained her bachelor’s and master’s degrees was accredited... (more)

Arizona:

In Olsen, the claimant began working at an Amazon Fullment Center warehouse in November 2020. On her second day, the claimant felt pain in her left lower back while lifting a package. The claimant finished her shift but did not return to work. Dr. Zate diagnosed Claimant with a compression fracture and performed a kyphoplasty (where cement is injected into a fractured vertebrae to relieve pain, restore height, and assist in healing). Amazon accepted Claimant’s workers’ compensation claim but denied coverage for the kyphoplasty procedure. The claimant used her private insurance to cover the procedure...(more)



Arizona:

In Cullens, the claimant alleged that he sustained injuries between August 4, 2016 and September 2, 2016 while working for respondent-employer. In May 2017, an ALJ found the claimant’s injuries to be non-compensable because he had not been injured while working for respondent-employer. The claimant failed to timely file a written request for review. In July 2017, the claimant requested a hearing to protest the denial of the claim. The claimant failed to attend the hearing scheduled in November 2017 and the ALJ denied the request for a hearing, dismissing the matter. Per the ALJ, the claimant was attempting to re-litigate a matter that has already been litigated...(more)

Arizona:

In Solis by Trevizo, the surviving spouse and children of the decedent, Fernando Gardea Solis, brought a claim for death benefits after he died in an accident while hauling cargo. The decedent was the sole owner of Ropers Transport, LLC. The decedent had previously worked as an employee-driver for Duncan & Sons Line, Inc. who transported goods for DSL Logistics, LLC. Duncan and DSL shared office space and had corporate officers and owners in common. The decedent purchased a semi-truck from Duncan in 2016 and formed Ropers. Duncan financed the loan for the decedents’ truck. The decedent contracted with DSL to transport goods along the same route that he drove for Duncan. DSL and the decedent entered into a written agreement that identified DSL as a federally licensed freight broker and Ropers as a federally licensed motor carrier... (more)

Jenna Eccles
COLORADO CASE LAW UPDATES


In Lowe, the claimant sustained a severe injury after falling in a bathroom at the condominium complex he worked at. The claimant had no memory of the fall but was in the bathroom to inspect a suspected water leak. The ALJ first held that the claimant had fainted due to an unknown etiology but that the conditions of his employment did not contribute to his injuries and therefore were not compensable. On appeal, the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) determined that the ALJ’s findings were unsupported by the evidence because photographs that were admitted into evidence showed blood spatter on the toiler and the ALJ made a specific finding that there was no blood spatter on the toilet... (more)



Colorado:

In Choleta, the Colorado Court of Appeals (the Court) clarified the requirement to vest jurisdiction in Colorado when an out of state worker is injured on the job in Colorado. In this case the claimant from Oregon was hired by a wild land firefighting company in 2019 to fight a fire outside of Salida, Colorado. The claimant worked for the employer for a total of ten days before his injury. The claimant sustained back injuries when a co-worker grabbed him off of a fire engine and threw him to the ground. The claimant quit the job the next day and returned to Oregon, where he sought medical treatment. The claimant then filed a workers’ compensation claim in Colorado...(more)

Colorado Case Law:
In Singh, the claimant was a taxi driver who was injured in a car accident in March 2019. The claimant sustained a neck muscle strain, with no other serious injuries. In May 2019, the claimant’s authorized treatment provider (ATP) found that the claimant’s subjective complaints outweighed the objective findings. . . (more)

Colorado Case Law:
Giron is a second opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals (the Court) dealing with the issue of substantial evidence. In this case, a security guard alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of natural gas inhalation while at work. The claimant smelt gas and called the local fire department, who traced the smell to an unlit pilot light on the stove. The claimant was advised that it was safe to re-enter the building and resume her shift. . . (more)
Colorado Case Law Update:

In Dean, the claimant was placed at MMI and received a 40% whole person impairment rating by his ATP, Dr. Anderson-Oeser. The respondents requested a Division IME and Dr. Mathwich was selected as the physician.
Dr. Mathwich emailed the parties letting them know that while he had never examined the claimant, Dr. Anderson-Oeser had examined the claimant while she was at Dr. Mathwich’s practice. All parties agreed that they were comfortable proceeding with Dr. Mathwich as the Division IME physician...(more)
Service Offering