A&B Mechanical v. Labor Commission
2013 UT App 230
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2004 Scott Driscoll injured his left shoulder/neck at work and had surgery; he later sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits.
- A&B Mechanical and Driscoll entered a 2006 stipulated order finding Driscoll entitled to PTD benefits but conditioning payment on success of a Return to Work Plan; if rehabilitation failed the ALJ would order PTD benefits.
- The parties amended the plan and Driscoll completed an electronics certificate and later an IT two‑year degree, diligently searched for work for years but obtained only one unsuitable offer due to medical restrictions.
- A second (2008) stipulated order incorporated the 2006 order, provided subsistence/temporary partial payments for a limited period, required job placement assistance, and said the parties could revisit additional benefits by mediation or Application for Hearing if unemployment persisted.
- In 2009 Driscoll moved for a final determination that rehabilitation was not possible; the ALJ held a hearing, found rehabilitation unsuccessful, and ordered weekly PTD benefits; the Commission affirmed and A&B sought judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A&B) | Defendant's Argument (Driscoll / Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ/Commission erred by not requiring filing of a new Application for Hearing to establish PTD after 2008 order | 2008 order required Driscoll to file an Application for Hearing to re‑establish entitlement; ALJ should have required relitigation | Parties had already stipulated entitlement to PTD in 2006; only the question of whether rehabilitation succeeded remained and the ALJ could adjudicate that without relitigating entitlement | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly treated the 2008 order as allowing reinstatement of the PTD claim to determine whether rehabilitation was possible without relitigating entitlement |
| Whether ALJ failed to reconcile § 34A‑2‑413(6)(a)(ii) (benefits end when employee can return to regular, steady work) with § 34A‑2‑413(5)(f) (order PTD if rehabilitation not possible) | A&B: Section 6(a)(ii) terminates benefits because Driscoll was capable of returning to regular, steady work | Driscoll/Commission: Determination that rehabilitation was impossible necessarily considered availability of regular, steady work and medical/functional limits | Affirmed — Commission considered whether work was "regular, steady, and readily available" and properly concluded rehabilitation was not possible, so § 6(a)(ii) did not cut off benefits here |
| Whether ALJ’s factual findings (rehabilitation impossible) lack substantial evidence | A&B: Vocational testimony, instructor letters, and Driscoll’s skills show he was prepared and thus rehabilitated | Driscoll/Commission: Despite schooling and efforts, Driscoll could not find suitable work meeting medical restrictions over four years | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ/Commission findings; alternative inferences do not overturn agency factfinding |
| Whether Commission’s delay in issuing its decision violated A&B’s due process rights | A&B: 27‑month delay caused harm and possibly prejudiced future examination of claim | Driscoll/Commission: A&B did not show the delay was unreasonable or that it sought relief below; legal standard requires showing and citation | Denied — A&B failed to develop the due process argument or show prejudice; claim rejected on briefing/merits grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Uintah Basin Med. Ctr. v. Hardy, 179 P.3d 786 (Utah 2008) (court reviews interpretation of its own order for abuse of discretion)
- Reinsurance Fund v. Labor Comm’n, 289 P.3d 576 (Utah 2012) (procedural liberality: an application for hearing need only provide notice)
- Vigos v. Mountainland Builders, Inc., 993 P.2d 207 (Utah 2000) (plurality) (great liberality as to form and substance of application for compensation)
- Martinez v. Media‑Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints, 164 P.3d 384 (Utah 2007) (challenger must marshal record and show findings lack substantial evidence)
- Hurley v. Board of Review of the Indus. Comm’n, 767 P.2d 524 (Utah 1988) (agency factfinding will not be overturned if supported by substantial evidence)
- Columbia HCA v. Labor Comm’n, 258 P.3d 640 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (discusses standards for determining availability of other work and reemployment analysis)
- Olsen v. Labor Comm’n, 249 P.3d 586 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (delay in issuing decision addressed; party must raise delay below to preserve due process claim)