*1 comport specified may be To with the requirements the amounted of ment of due process, the notice of must be such granted. nature reasonably required as to convey the infor- exemption the third stated: example, For In assessing mation.8 the adequacy of a Adjudication Of Final of 3. Evidence notice the central whether issue is the com- is, you that Nonliability evidence —that of type munication contains the information a civil ac- not liable in have been found is reasonably which to calculated afford the accident. at law out of the tion opportunity informant be heard at a police evidence of a court’s (Accordingly, meaningful meaningful time and in a man- a traffic you guilty not having found ner.9 evidence); . violation is In Burson, Bell v. a constitutional stan- the entire notice reveals A review of established; legislature dard was imple- in im- deficiency incompleteness serious this 41-12-2(c). mented standard in Sec. licensee; parting knowledge to the essential sent plaintiff notice cannot be might intelligent make an and so that he to contain type deemed of information to waive informed to whether decision reasonably calculated to inform him of the right pre-suspension to a his constitutional type nature of pre-suspension hearing Specifically, the notice is not de- hearing. which under entitled the due signed to the licensee that he is process inform clause. hearing to de- pre-suspension

entitled to a there WILKINS, J., termine whether was a reasonable concurs views ex- fault, probability that he was at and a pressed in the dissenting opinion of MAU- GHAN, judgment might against be rendered him as J. accident.

a result of the process conception is not a

Due technical time, content

with a fixed unrelated circumstances;

place, and it is flexible and procedural

requires protections as the

particular analy- demands. In an situation important is the procedure

sis of a factor deprivation pri- risk of an erroneous The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF used, through procedures vate interest SAINTS, Plaintiff, LATTER-DAY value, any, if additional probable and the safeguards.6 procedural or substitute v. process

The essence of due is the re- Utah, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of person ‘a quirement jeopardy Thurman, L. and Ivan Defendants. given] serious the case loss notice of [be No. 15640. meet against opportunity him it’. Supreme Court of Utah. necessary is All that [Citation] tailored, procedures light Jan. 1979. made, capacities decision to be to ‘the of those to be circumstances who are they to insure are

heard’ [Citation]

given meaningful opportunity

present case . .7 their U.S., pp. 6. Id. at of 424 S.Ct. 893. 334-335 8. Mullane v. Central Bank Hanover and Trust Co., 306, 314-315, 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. L.Ed. 865 U.S., pp. p. 7. Id. at 348-349 of 424 909 of 96 at S.Ct. Co., Inc., Aguchak Montgomery v. Ward Alaska, 520 P.2d 1356-1357

gaged in only his usual activities and had no complaint pain while working. When he tired, became somewhat he sat down and rested for about five Upon minutes. hear- ing the telephone ring, he stood up suddenly time, and for the first felt a sharp pain in his lower pain back. The caused him to sit again down and rest. After resting, Thur- man was able to continue work but not pain. without reported He problem the supervisor his day next and subsequent- ly sought medical assistance. It was deter- mined that he had suffered a herniated disc which ultimately required operation. The administrative judge law ruled that a compensable “accident” had occurred while Thurman “working” plaintiff’s was in meetinghouse and the Industrial Commis- gave an award. Subsequently peti- a tion for writ of review was filed with this pursuant U.C.A., 1953, Court 35-1-83. question sole we upon are called answer is whether there is sufficient evi- dence in the record to support that Thurman sustained an inju- accidental ry on job.1 The only relating facts the claimed accident were presented by the Thurman, testimony of and there is nothing contained therein that warrants a conclu- sion that an accident occurred. There is Kirton, McConkie, Joseph Boy- C. Rust of nothing in testimony his that shows any- Boyle, City, plaintiff. er & Salt Lake for thing unusual about his activities that Hansen, Gen., B. Atty. Robert Salt Lake any strain, shows unusual exertion or or City, for Industrial Comm. any objects that shows contact with or a simply nothing fall. There was different Tate, Jr., Ralph City, R. Lake for Salt about his day question activities on the Thurman.

than on other working day. HALL, Justice: The following excerpts from Thurman’s testimony Review of an order of the Industrial are demonstrative of the fact awarding compen- Commission workmen’s that no accident occurred: injuries one Ivan Thurman for sation to Q. you setting up When were those ta- working while for Plain- allegedly sustained that, you bles on I believe said Wednes- tiff. We reverse. day morning, this you a routine that engage in normally every Wednesday? employed by Plaintiff as a

Thurman is A. Yes. janitor meetinghouse. On March Q. following typical he was his routine of You talked about pattern of ac-

setting up preparation tivity you’d Wednesdays chairs and tables in had on over weekly meeting. many years you’ve jani- scheduled He en- for been a prerequisite obtaining injured “by 1. As a an award of he was out of or in employment.” U.C.A., 1953, under Utah’s Workmen’s Com- of his course Act, pensation must claimant establish 35-1 —45. is, question My prior you driving precipitated tor. time problem and could tired, you sat down on the chair when felt aggravated have a pre-existing condition anything your activities, was there since there was some evidence of disc de- you morning, far as what had to do that generation. He had been performing ex- setting up or way chairs tables actly the same kind of work over 11-year janitorial doing any your activity, period and there nothing different *3 any way unusual that was in or out of the particular about this trip from others. This ordinary your activity from normal for Court then stated: particular day? There nothing in this record that A. No. event, shows unusual or ‘accident’ if you please, justifying compensability along To be considered with the testimo- nature, within the intent or spirit of the ny opinion of Thurman is the of the medical workmen’s compensation act. To con- which panel pertinent part reads in as fol- otherwise, clude would insure every truck lows: driver, every engineer, railroad every air- opinion It is the of the Medical Panel pilot line others, and a lot of against a that at that time when Mr. Thurman physiological malfunction or physical col- chair, from degenerated arose his disc lapse of any of hundreds of human or- material, have, as we protruded all into gans, completely unproven cause, as to partway through or surrounding liga- but compensable only by virtue of the ment, fibrosus, the anulus by and that happenstance that the malfunction, col- developed leg pain, time he his the disc lapse injury occurred while the em- progressed material had enough far ployee job was on the and not home or through the anulus surrounding fibrosus [Emphasis elsewhere. pulposis the nucleus it was then added.] pressing on the nerve root and in this The evidence does support the Indus- way degree and to this there is a causal trial Commission’sconclusion that an “acci- relationship between the claimant’s prob- dent” had arisen out of or in the course of complaints lems and and the activity at employment. Thurman’s The order of the that time. [Emphasis added.] Commission is therefore reversed and re- This manded previously Court has defined with instruction to dismiss Thur- term “accident” arising out of or in man’s claim. employment

course of as that which “con- notes an unanticipated, unintended occur- ELLETT, J., CROCKETT, C. J., con- rence different normally from what would cur. expected to occur in the usual courts of WILKINS, Justice (dissenting): events.”2 The facts of this case way in no fit that Simply definition. because the I respectfully first dissent. pain during onset of occurred working 31, 1976, On March Ivan Thurman was hours, it does not follow that there is a employed by the janitor Church as a

compensable “injury.” meetinghouse Midvale, Utah. That The case Warehousing Corp. of Redman morning, Thurman setting up tables 3 closely v. Industrial Commission is point and chairs for meeting a therein. He felt on the law disposi- and on the facts and is fine as began work, he but as he contin- tive here. In that a ued, case truck driver expe- he experienced unusual fatigue and pain rienced back during one of his trips. weakness in his arms and back. Despite subsequently He was hospitalized for a her- the weakness and fatigue, he continued set- A panel niated disc. medical ting found that his up chairs and tables until he finished Carling Comm., 260, 398, v. Industrial 16 Utah 2d 3. 22 (1969). Utah 2d 454 P.2d 283 also, (1965); Graybar 399 P.2d 202 see Electric Comm., 568, Co. v. Ind. 73 Utah 276 P. 161 He Utah 2d meeting. (1972); for the P.2d 118 the rooms Hackford preparing After Thurman had down rest. then sat Utah 2d minutes, a few in a chair for relaxed an- rang, up as he

telephone stood Hence, question we must answer is it, sharp pain felt in his lower swer whether there is substantial evidence fur- pain him sit down caused back. nishing reasonable basis to support He was to continue work but again. able Commission that Thurman re- pain, subsequently and he not without injured by out of or in medical treatment. ceived the course of employment. his facts, the Industrial Commis- Upon these The Act does not itself define the word on November sion awarded “accident,” but has interpreted this Court 18, 1977, the Commis- 1977. On November the term to occurrence mean an of an unin- supplemental order amend- entered tended, unforeseen unusual event. writ part. petition A for ing the award in *4 Commission, v. Carling Industrial 16 Utah Jan- with this Court on review filed of 260, (1965). 2d 399 P.2d 202 Perhaps the Ann., 27,1978, pursuant to Utah Code uary most common incident to qualify as an acci- 1953, ref- statutory All other Sec. 35-1-83. dent is where is employee by an struck an also this code. erences are to object or where por- he falls and strikes a the asks to appeal, Plaintiff this Court On body against object. tion of his an An the that finding the of Commission reverse however, not, need incident include contact injured “by accident Thurman object employee’s by body with the in his employment” of or in the course of out order to an accident. It is settled constitute by required is the Utah Workmen’s Com- beyond question that an internal failure obtaining Act as pensation prerequisite to brought by about over-exertion of compensation. an award Sec. 35-1-45. employment may qualify of as an course by power finding review such Our meaning within the of the Act. accident limited. the the Commission is Under Id.; Packing Corp., Jones v. 121 California (hereafter Compensation Workmen’s Act 612, 244 640 Utah P.2d “Act”) the of prerogative it is the Industrial requires Act that the accident arise The facts. find Sec. 35-1-85 Commission employment. of or in the course of Sec. out part in as follows: reads relevant An arises out of the 35-1-45. accident findings com- and conclusions of the employment if there is a causal course of questions fact con- mission on shall be employment between the connection subject and final and shall not be clusive Corporation K v. Indus accident. M & the . review Commission, 488, 112 Utah 189 P.2d trial Further, provides part: in Sec. 35-1-84 arises the course (1948). An accident 132 court affirm Upon may such review the on premises if it occurs the employment award, but the only or set aside such on performed, being the is Ed where work (1) following grounds: That commis- Commission, 87 Utah v. Industrial wards its acted or in excess of without (2) findings do powers; That the of fact support the award. finding of The Commission’s testimony claimant’s supported by is interpreted has these sections as This Court physicians who examined reports two establishing the rule Commission’s injury. after Claimant testi- claimant subject findings of fact shall not fatigue lift- while that he felt unusual fied if there substantial by review this Court tables, after shortly and that chairs and ing furnishing a basis evidence reasonable pain. lifting, sharp back experienced concurring findings. See support re- examined claimant physicians who v. Two Maughan Savage opinion of Justice was a causal connection Commission, Utah, there ported P.2d 782 565 Industrial lifting injury. Commission, heavy and the Evans between (1977); panel The medical concluded claimant’s

injury by was not caused a pre-existing COMPANY, UTAH POWER & LIGHT Certainly these condition. testimonies con- corporation, Plaintiff, support stitute substantial evidence to v. compensable Commission’s in- COMMISSION, UTAH STATE TAX jury. Defendant. in Redman Warehousing Our decision No. 15256. Corp. v. Industrial 22 Utah 2d (1969), P.2d 283 is easily distin- Supreme Court of Utah. guishable from the instant case. In Red- Jan. man, sitting the Commission had found the driving by employee employ- er’s car as the cause of the back injury by claimant. This

suffered Court reversed ground

an award of on the was a complete

that there absence of com- proof support any

petent finding with

respect injury. to the cause of Here there

is substantial evidence of causation.

It should also be noted that this Court *5 repeatedly

has held that the Workmen’s

Compensation liberally Act should be ap-

plied coverage in favor of the employee. Commission, Askren v.

See Industrial

Utah 2d We have pointed

often out that doubt concern-

ing right compensation should be employee.

resolved in favor of the M & See Corporation

ante. I discern no departing reason for

from these well-established salutary

rules this case.

Thus, my opinion, ample there is sup- in the law

port and evidence for the award and we therefore ought to

affirm the decision of the Commission.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the views ex-

pressed dissenting opinion of WIL-

KINS, J.