Case Information
_________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
W ILLIAM L OGAN G REEN , Petitioner, v.
L ABOR C OMMISSION AND ABF F REIGHT S YSTEMS AND / OR A MERICAN I NSURANCE C OMPANY ,
Respondents. Memorandum Decision No. Filed July 5,
Original Proceeding this Court
Brian D. Kelm, Attorney for Petitioner
Alan L. Hennebold, Attorney Respondent Lori L. Hansen Cody G. Kesler, Attorneys for Respondents ABF Freight Systems and/or American Insurance Company J UDGE J AMES Z. D AVIS authored Memorandum Decision, in which J UDGES W ILLIAM A. T HORNE J R . J. F REDERIC V OROS J R .
concurred.
DAVIS, Judge:
¶1 William Logan seeks review Utah Labor Commission’s reversing Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) award benefits. We decline decision. ¶2 issue at hand whether informed employer, ABF Freight Systems (ABF), injured an May required Utah Code. v. See generally Utah Code Ann. § 34A ‐ 2 ‐ 407(1), (3) (LexisNexis 2011) [1] (requiring an employee report an employer or the Division of Industrial Accidents within 180 days of the accident). ALJ concluded the preponderance of the evidence indicated had timely reported the accident, the reached the opposite conclusion based on the same evidence.
¶3 We will not the findings of fact if they
are “based substantial evidence, even if another conclusion from
the evidence is permissible.”
Hurley v. Board of Review of the Indus.
Comm ʹ n
,
¶4 Green marshals favor of Commission’s first recognizing absent record any of paperwork typically filed an industrial reported within required ‐ day period accident. Additionally, according testimony manager of ABF’s Salt Lake City branch (Manager), had told Manager neck problems were related work. Furthermore, Manager testified all ABF’s employees aware regularly reminded importance reporting ‐ related injuries failure do so could jeopardize an employee’s job. Manager testified wife had requested forms necessary for receive family medical leave benefits rather than benefits. Further, Where there have been substantive changes sections of Utah Code relevant our analysis, we cite current version convenience reader. *3 Green Green’s supervisor (Supervisor) testified that although he Green had a good rapport, communicated well with each other, and often talked about Green’s health issues, he had recollection Green ever attributing his health problems to a injury. ¶5 Green argues that nonetheless made several inaccurate fact that skewed its decision. In particular, Green contends that a “progress note” from one his doctors (Doctor), dated July refutes Commission’s assertion that none Green’s physicians attributed, even mentioned, his work in their medical files within 180 ‐ day period. The progress note states, in relevant part, “Left neck pain onset 2 [years] ago crawled under truck/trailer[,] worse X2 months.” Green interprets note as that Doctor attributed Green’s injuries May 2009 accident. Because this, Green concludes, became Doctor’s responsibility file requisite paperwork, Doctor’s failure fulfill his duties should bar claims. We, however, not persuaded that Commission’s failure address this progress note renders its erroneous; note simply too unclear outweigh other relied on Commission. ¶6 Green challenges finding that “testimony at hearing [was] somewhat equivocal he did not assert he told ABF’s dispatchers that he was injured while working.” testified after he attempted forcefully pull a lever his semi ‐ truck detaches tractor trailer, he felt “a real sharp pain in [his] shoulders,” “[e]very time [he] turned [his] head left [his] face would go numb [he] . . . couldn’t talk.” testified happened “[j]ust drove home. Just called dispatch. They said, [w]ell, go home.” On appeal, contends his testimony, “in context, . . . indicates explained his May occurred he Las Vegas, Nevada work. He testified his drive from Las Vegas home Salt Lake City took upwards eight hours.
Green that he began his response a step ahead of himself, restarted, and restated himself more correctly to indicate that[] the first thing he did[] was call dispatch” and report incident. The ALJ considered to be a credible and articulate witness. The ALJ noted that there was no evidence in record discrediting Green’s testimony or character there was evidence both establishing his credibility as a witness, i.e., paperwork confirming Green was taken off of work schedule two days after May accident, and conscientiousness as an employee, i.e., evidence that requested permission return to earlier than physician advised.
¶7 Be as it may, has nonetheless failed point any clear indication in his testimony or elsewhere he actually reported he called dispatch. He does not say as much in his testimony, and he has not directed our attention elsewhere record support conclusion. We agree only with Green’s acknowledgment testimony was “not a model clarity.”
¶8 Although both ALJ’s Commission’s interpretations facts are reasonable, applicable standard review limits our analysis a determination whether supported substantial evidence. We conclude they are. The apparently found Manager’s Supervisor’s testimonies more convincing than Green’s interpreted absence affirmative evidence establishing was reported ABF or any of physicians as evidence not, fact, reported on time. Even if absence affirmative could also reasonably be interpreted support ALJ’s conclusion indicate opposite—that there a report was filed—“this court will substitute its judgment as testimony unclear whether called dispatch before drove home Las Vegas, he got home, both. between two reasonably conflicting views,” Grace Drilling Co. v. Board Review Indus. Comm’n , P.2d (Utah Ct. App. 1989). “It province [Commission], appellate courts, resolve conflicting evidence, where inconsistent inferences can be drawn same evidence, [Commission] draw inferences.” See id. Accordingly, we do decision.