Right Way Trucking Inc. v. Labor Commission
2015 UT App 210
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Employee (James Eacho), a truck driver, returned from a hot multi-day delivery trip and shortly thereafter developed severe illness (sepsis, probable heat stroke, renal failure, cerebral infarct, encephalopathy).
- Employee claimed workers’ compensation; his treating physician linked the condition to work-related heat illness. Employer’s IME attributed the primary cause to a streptococcal bacteremia of unknown source, acknowledging only that heat may have increased susceptibility.
- An ALJ sent competing medical opinions to a two-physician medical panel with instructions to rely on the ALJ’s interim findings and to identify any additional, non-contradictory facts used.
- The medical panel concluded that heat stress/heat stroke triggered a systemic inflammatory response permitting streptococcus to enter the bloodstream and cause sepsis; its report included summaries of oral histories from Employee and his wife.
- Employer objected, sought an ‘‘objection hearing,’’ and asked the Commission to (1) send the IME’s response to the panel and (2) ask the panel whether it relied solely on the interim order. The ALJ and Labor Commission denied those requests. Employer appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of medical panel report | Employer: panel relied on extra-record oral histories and altered facts; report unreliable; objection hearing required | ALJ/Commission: panel’s oral histories were minor, within panel’s role, and complied with ALJ directions; no hearing needed | Court: ALJ did not abuse discretion; panel may take oral histories and substantially complied with instructions; report admissible |
| Request to send clarifying question to medical panel | Employer: ask panel whether it relied solely on interim order and, if not, what additional facts | Commission: ALJ already found any additional facts were minor/immaterial; no need to re-query panel | Court: Commission’s refusal was not an abuse of discretion; clarification unnecessary given ALJ’s findings |
| IME’s post-report response — new or conflicting evidence | Employer: IME’s response contradicted panel (disputed mechanism: ‘‘leaky gut" leading to bacteremia) and warranted hearing or resubmission to panel | ALJ/Commission: IME largely reiterated original opinion; objections insufficiently new or detailed to require further proceedings | Court: IME’s response did not constitute new/conflicting medical evidence requiring a hearing or resubmission; denial was within discretion |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Employee: requests appellate attorney fees under administrative rule | Employer: not directly opposed in opinion | Court: Remanded to Labor Commission to determine amount per Utah Admin. Code R602-2-4(C)(3)(b) (30% rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Borja v. Labor Comm’n, 327 P.3d 1223 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (ALJ’s discretion in admitting medical panel reports; review limited to abuse of discretion)
- Danny’s Drywall v. Labor Comm’n, 339 P.3d 624 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (medical panels may conduct interviews and include oral histories in reports)
- Resort Retainers v. Labor Comm’n, 238 P.3d 1081 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (new medical opinions that merely restate reviewed information do not necessitate reopening evidence)
- Speirs v. Southern Utah Univ., 60 P.3d 42 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (operative facts are those found by the ALJ and approved by the Commission)