Al Jajo v. arrowhead/benchmark

── Al Jajo v. arrowhead/benchmark ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 ABDULAHAD AL JAJO, Petitioner Employee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, AARROWHEAD SECURITY INC VETSEC PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent Employer, BENCHMARK INSURANCE, Respondent Carrier. No. 1 CA-IC 25-0019 FILED 05-05-2026 Special Action - Industrial Commission ICA Claim No. 20211480478 Carrier Claim No. 7176043 The Honorable Karen E. Karl, Administrative Law Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Abdulahad Al Jajo, Peoria Petitioner Employee Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix By Afshan Peimani Counsel for Respondent Lundmark Barberich La Mont & Puig PC, Phoenix By Kevin E. Karges, Austin M. Vale Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurance Carrier MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian joined. H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Abdulahad Al Jajo appeals an Industrial Commission of Arizona (“ICA”) decision denying him disability benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2021 Al Jajo fractured his hip working as a security guard for Arrowhead Security Inc., doing business as Vet-Sec Protection Agency (“VetSec”). After an evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Al Jajo’s “condition became medically stationary with an unscheduled 22% permanent impairment of the left lower extremity” and closed his claim. The ICA Claims Division then established that Al Jajo “sustained a reduction in monthly earning capacity, entitling [him] to the sum of $33.79 per month.” He requested a hearing to challenge that determination. ¶3 At the start of the hearing, the ALJ clarified that the only issue for consideration was Al Jajo’s earning capacity: his “ability to earn a living on the open and competitive labor market.” The ALJ also reminded Al Jajo during the hearing that his medical condition, specifically his request for a hip replacement, was not at issue. ¶4 Dr. David Ott, an orthopedic surgeon who conducted two independent medical examinations (“IMEs”) of Al Jajo testified. He testified, consistent with his written reports, that Al Jajo “could work in a sedentary or light duty status, which would include work as a security guard” so long as his work was restricted. Specifically, he felt that Al Jajo’s work should be limited to no heavy lifting or running, walking no farther than 100 yards at a time, and walking no more than 1000 yards per shift. 2  AL JAJO v. AARROWHEAD/BENCHMARK Decision of the Court Sam Fullam, VetSec’s Director of Technology Solutions, testified that VetSec would allow Al Jajo to return to work and accommodate the restrictions recommended by Ott. Fullam said that VetSec “would love to have him back” and that the pay for the position had increased. VetSec made a written offer of employment to Al Jajo assuring that they would accommodate his medical restrictions. ¶5 Al Jajo represented himself during the hearing. He called Brett Heath, a labor market consultant, as a witness. Heath originally issued a report finding that Al Jajo was wholly disabled and thus had a total loss of earning capacity. But at the hearing Heath agreed that if VetSec offered Al Jajo his former secu