*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
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
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
K
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.