Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Andrew M. Jacobs](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10802549/torgyik-v-belltrans/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Torgyik v. bell/trans

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-IC 25-0016

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Andrew M. Jacobs

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SANDOR TORGYIK, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

BELL FORD INC, Respondent Employer,

TRANS CITY CASUALTY INSURANCE CO, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 25-0016
FILED 03-02-2026

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20232980501
Carrier Claim No. TL23015
The Honorable Jeanne Steiner, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Sandor Torgyik, Glendale
Petitioner Employee

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Afshan Peimani
Counsel for Respondent

Lundmark Barberich La Mont & Puig PC, Phoenix
By Javier Arturo Puig and David T. Lundmark
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurance Carrier
TORGYIK v. BELL/TRANS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Sandor Torgyik challenges an Industrial Commission of
Arizona (“ICA”) award, claiming it incorrectly found his industrial injury
medically stationary and incorrectly closed his claim without finding
permanent impairment. Because evidence in the record supports the ICA
decision, we affirm.

FACTS AND HISTORY

A. Torgyik Hurt Himself at Work, Filed a Workers’
Compensation Claim, and Sought Treatment.

¶2 Torgyik is in his seventies and has had both knees replaced,
so he no longer works as an auto body technician. When he was injured in
late September 2023, Torgyik worked as a car cleaner and detailer in
Respondent Bell Ford’s auto repair shop. After taking an elevated,
“monster”-type, truck with oversized tires through a car wash and cleaning
its interior, he exited the truck by sliding off the side of the driver’s seat and
dropping to the ground, landing on his feet and feeling pain in his knees.
He estimated the seat was five feet above ground and that his feet dropped
two to three feet to the ground. He continued working that day and for the
next several weeks before seeking medical help for knee pain.

¶3 Torgyik filed a workers’ compensation claim about three
weeks later, saying he injured both knees when he dropped to the ground
out of the truck. His claim was accepted.

¶4 Torgyik first saw orthopedist Earl Feng, M.D., who had
replaced both of Torgyik’s knees in separate surgeries five and six years
earlier. On his first visit in October 2023, Torgyik complained about knee
pain caused by the truck incident. Three weeks later, he returned to Dr.
Feng complaining about numbness and tingling in his left leg, which Dr.
Feng attributed to a possible pinched nerve in his back. Dr. Feng referred
Torgyik to a back specialist. Four days later, Torgyik was seen in an
emergency room for knee pain, which he attributed to the work incident

2
TORGYIK v. BELL/TRANS
Decision of the Court

and said was getting worse. X-rays showed no acute injury to his knees.
He was discharged.

¶5 A month later he was back at Dr. Feng’s complaining of
continued knee pain. MRIs of his knees showed no acute trauma. Dr. Feng
concluded the knees were “not likely the source of his continued
symptomology” and referred Torgyik to a pain management or neurology
specialist.

¶6 In February 2024, Torgyik saw another orthopedist for his
knee pain. The orthopedist took x-rays, finding nothing abnormal and no
acute injury but recommending a bone scan. A month later, he saw
orthopedic surgeon Perry Evangelista, M.D., for bilateral hip pain. Based
on a March 2024 bone scan, Dr. Evangelista diagnosed severe osteoarthritis
in both hips and recommended hip replacement surgery, which he
performed in July 2024.

¶7 In January 2024, orthopedic surgeon Neal Rockowitz, M.D.
conducted an independent medical examination (“IME”) of Torgyik at the
request of Respondent carrier Trans City Casualty Insurance Co. He
reviewed medical records and physically examined Torgyik, concluding
the claimed injury was not “a work injury of significance.” He declared
Torgyik medically stationary and without impairment. Based on the IME,
Respondents issued a notice closing Torgyik’s claim. Torgyik protested
and the ICA held a hearing.

B. Doctors Present Conflicting Views of Whether Torgyik’s
Injury Was Work-Derived and Whether It Was Stationary at
an Industrial Commission Hearing.

¶8 At the hearing, Torgyik testified about the workplace
incident, stating he hurt both his knees and his hips. He further testified
that he told Dr. Feng that he had hip pain and that Dr. Feng told him his
knee pain could be from his hips radiating down to his knees. However, he
also testified Dr. Evangelista was the first doctor to tell him his problem
could be with his hips and that Dr. Feng did not examine his hips. He
insisted on cross-examination that he told several doctors about hip pain
even though there is no documentation of that in the medical records.

¶9 Dr. Evangelista testified about Torgyik’s hip condition and
the need for hip replacements. He stated that he began treating Torgyik in
February 2024 and explained that in many patients with complaints of knee
pain the cause is actually in the hips. An X-ray of Torgyik’s hips showed
severe osteoarthritis, a chronic condition, for which surgery was eventually

3
TORGYIK v. BELL/TRANS
Decision of the Court

necessary. He testified he believed Torgyik injured his hips when he
dropped out of the truck, stating Torgyik “probably had an acute
exacerbation of labral pathology but also certainly an acute exacerbation of
the underlying hip arthritis . . . .” He concluded that the need for bilateral
hip replacements related to the workplace injury.

¶10 Dr. Rockowitz also testified. His January 2024 IME found no
evidence of a significant knee injury from the truck incident. He also
testified that Torgyik’s knee pain complaints did not “fit the pattern that we
typically see when we have hip [abnormality] with referred pain to the
knee.” In an addendum authored after reviewing the hip X-rays taken after
his IME, he agreed Torgyik had “at least [a] moderate level [of]
osteoarthritis” in his hips. But he noted there were no signs of acute trauma
that would indicate an exacerbation of osteoarthritis.

¶11 A third medical expert testified at the hearing. Sherwood
Duhon, M.D. is an orthopedic surgeon who performed an IME of Torgyik
in April 2024. After reviewing records and examining Torgyik, he found
“no objective evidence of a permanent aggravation” of the hips. Dr. Duhon
explained he would have expected groin pain to manifest sooner than four
or five months later had the truck incident exacerbated the arthritis in
Torgyik’s hips. He denied Torgyik’s hip replacements were needed
because of the drop from the truck.

C. The ALJ Finds Respondents’ Medical Experts More
Probably Correct Than Torgyik’s.

¶12 An ICA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the
testimony and evidence and found Torgyik was not a credible witness and
the opinions of Dr. Duhon and Dr. Rockowitz were more probably correct
and well-founded than the opinion of Dr. Evangelista.1 The ALJ affirmed
closure of Torgyik’s claim.

¶13 Upon administrative review, Torgyik attempted to impeach
Dr. Rockowitz by submitting new evidence. The ALJ did not accept the
newly submitted evidence, but reconsidered the evidence already in the
record. The ALJ affirmed her conclusions that Torgyik’s testimony about
his condition after the incident was not credible and that “Dr.
Evangelist[a]’s opinions are based on [Torgyik]’s subjective complaints and
history, which are not reliable . . . .”

1 It also established Torgyik’s average monthly wage, which Torgyik does

not challenge, and which we do not discuss in this decision.

4
TORGYIK v. BELL/TRANS
Decision of the Court

¶14 Torgyik then brought this special action challenging the
closure of his claim. We have jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s decision
under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(B), 23-951(A).

DISCUSSION

I. We Decline to Strike Torgyik’s Opening Brief or Treat It as
Waiving His Contention That the ALJ Should Not Have Relied on
Dr. Rockowitz’s Medical Opinion.

¶15 Respondents moved to strike Torgyik’s opening brief for not
complying with ARCAP 13(a)(7) because “it [did] not contain any legal
argument or citations to the record.” Respondents likewise argue in their
brief in this Court that Torgyik has waived appellate review, contending
his opening brief “does not contain any legal argument” and is “totally
deficient.”

¶16 We disagree on both points. As to the former, Torgyik argues
that the ALJ should not have relied on Dr. Rockowitz’s medical opinion
because Dr. Rockowitz was biased against him and did not perform an
adequate examination. As to the latter, Torgyik’s brief lacks record
citations, but the record is short and his statements clearly relate to it. We
thus exercise our discretion to decide Torgyik’s appeal on the merits. See
Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973) (affirming
judgment despite deficiencies of brief given judicial preference to resolve
matters on their merits).

II. We Affirm Because the Record Supports the ALJ’s Resolution of
Conflicts Within the Medical Opinion Evidence.

¶17 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining
the ICA award. Perry v. Indus. Comm’n, 112 Ariz. 397, 398 (1975). The ALJ
has the primary responsibility to resolve conflicts in medical opinion
evidence. Carousel Snack Bar v. Indus. Comm’n, 156 Ariz. 43, 46 (1988). We
defer to the ALJ’s resolution of these conflicts and will affirm the ALJ’s
findings if any reasonable theory of the evidence supports them. Perry, 112
Ariz. at 398–99.

¶18 An injured worker has the burden to show the medical
condition caused by their work injury has not become stationary and
requires continued active treatment. Stephens v. Indus. Comm’n, 114 Ariz.
92, 94 (App. 1977). A condition is stationary when it reaches maximum
medical improvement because “the physical condition of the employee
resulting from the industrial injury has reached a relatively stable status so

5
TORGYIK v. BELL/TRANS
Decision of the Court

that nothing further in the way of medical treatment is indicated to improve
that condition.” Aragon v. Indus. Comm’n, 14 Ariz. App. 175, 176 (1971).
When an issue is peculiarly within the knowledge of doctors, such as
whether a medical condition is stationary, a worker must provide
competent medical testimony that supports their claim that their condition
is not stationary. Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Indus. Comm’n, 199 Ariz. 532, 535
¶ 12 (2001).

¶19 Torgyik contends Dr. Rockowitz’s medical opinion should
not have been given weight over Dr. Evangelista’s. He thus asks us to
reweigh the medical evidence and expert testimony, which is not for us to
do. Wal-Mart v. Indus. Comm’n, 183 Ariz. 145, 147 (App. 1995) (appeals court
will not re-weigh the evidence). We affirm the ALJ’s resolution of
conflicting medical opinions unless there is an abuse of discretion. Kaibab
Indus. v. Indus. Comm’n, 196 Ariz. 601, 605 ¶ 10 (App. 2000). There is an
abuse of discretion when no reasonable theory of the evidence supports the
ICA decision. Malinski v. Indus. Comm’n, 103 Ariz. 213, 217 (1968). But that’s
not the case here: Dr. Rockowitz and Dr. Duhon explained the bases of their
opinions and evidence in the record supports their explanations.

CONCLUSION

¶20 Because we see no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

6