367 P.3d 569
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Leticia Peterson worked as a cake decorator at Fresh Market from 2005 and routinely lifted cakes and up to 42-lb frosting buckets; on October 5, 2011 she reached behind her with her right arm, lifted a ~16.5 lb tray from shoulder height, felt a burning pain, and was diagnosed with a torn right rotator cuff.
- A medical panel found Peterson had a preexisting right-shoulder condition; it apportioned causation as 40% due to work at Fresh Market, 30% due to prior jobs, and 30% to personal factors.
- The ALJ initially applied Allen and denied industrial-accident benefits (finding the exertion was not unusual); the ALJ later awarded occupational-disease benefits reduced by 60% (reflecting the 40% work causation).
- The Labor Commission Board set aside the ALJ’s occupational-disease award, remanded, then ultimately treated the claim as an industrial accident and denied benefits under Allen, concluding lifting the tray was not an unusual or extraordinary exertion.
- Peterson sought judicial review; the Utah Court of Appeals evaluated whether Peterson’s injury met the Allen unusual-or-extraordinary-exertion test despite her preexisting condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen’s unusual-or-extraordinary-exertion test applies when a preexisting condition contributed to the injury | Allen applies, but Fresh Market’s work contributed more than other factors so test should not bar recovery | Allen applies and Peterson’s lifting was ordinary, so no legal causation | Court assumed Allen applied but found Peterson met Allen anyway |
| Whether the specific lifting incident constituted an "unusual or extraordinary" exertion under Allen | The awkward, palm-up, extended-arm lift of a 16.5-lb tray from shoulder height was objectively unusual given the manner and circumstances | The lift was routine supermarket work and not unusually strenuous or repetitive | Held that the manner of lifting (awkward, extended, palm-up) made the exertion unusual/extraordinary and satisfied legal causation |
| Whether Peterson could pursue occupational disease after industrial-accident denial | Occupational-disease claim was properly raised on remand and could be pursued | Employer argued occupational-disease claim should not be allowed after industrial-accident denial | Court did not decide because industrial-accident recovery was awarded; issue left unresolved |
| Remedy following finding of legal causation | Peterson sought industrial-accident benefits | Employer opposed any industrial-accident award | Court set aside the Board’s order and remanded to Labor Commission for award of industrial-accident benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Industrial Comm’n, 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986) (establishes test requiring unusual or extraordinary exertion to prove legal causation when a preexisting condition contributes to the injury)
- Murray v. Labor Comm’n, 308 P.3d 461 (Utah 2013) (articulates two-step Allen analysis: characterize precipitating activity, then assess objective unusualness)
- American Roofing Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 752 P.2d 912 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (upheld unusual-exertion finding based on weight together with awkward manner of lifting)
- Stouffer Foods Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 801 P.2d 179 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (repetition or constant pressure can supply the unusual exertion element)
- Crosland v. Industrial Comm’n, 828 P.2d 528 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (moving very heavy objects may qualify as unusual exertion)