Schmidt v. Industrial Commission of Utah

Plaintiff, SCHMIDT, Douglas L. OF COMMISSION

The INDUSTRIAL Inc.,

UTAH, Kenway Engineering, Indemnity, Defendants.

No. 16097. of Utah.

Supreme Court

Aug. Meservy, Verhaaren &

Jay Meservy A. City, plaintiff. Lake for Salt Hansen, Floyd Atty. Gen. Robert B. Zabel, Gen., Astin, K. Allan Atty. G. Asst. for Poelman, City, Lake L. Salt Stewart defendants.

MAUGHAN, Justice: Schmidt, ap- plaintiff, Douglas L. of the Industrial Com- peals from an order for disabili- denying mission the order We reverse ty compensation. matter to the Commission remand the statutory refer- All proceedings. further Annotated, are to ences Utah Code amended. working began

Douglas L. Schmidt Inc., defendant, Kenway Engineering, sawman. 25, 1976, rough-cut as a October the cut- duty was employment principal His use in sizes for ting of steel to various required to he was shop. pieces The steel memorandum in of his motion for weight handle varied in from a few ounces review, pounds. to as much as 200 While an the denied over- Industrial Commission present shop head crane was in the its use affirmed the ac- plaintiff’s the motion and by employees judge. rendered it unavailable law tions of the administrative plaintiff at various times. When the appeal concern presented The issues on crane was unavailable the demands of the conclusion judge’s the administrative law position required plaintiff to move the plain- which the no “accident” occurred for alone with heavy pieces the aid of fellow granted compensation, tiff could be plaintiff The at testified judge of the administrative law to refer the Hearing it was a common oc- a medical case to currence in carrying larger pieces panel of certain evidence the exclusion one of the suddenly individuals involved to hearing. at presented by plaintiff drop piece. This would result in the issue, Concerning plaintiff the first other person absorbing the shock of the to and at the hear- candidly explained prior metal hitting the floor. any specific time pinpoint he could not male, plaintiff, year The a 21 old had a origin or occurrence as the prior history of back disorders. As an ado- judge explained in his problems. back lescent he had contracted dis- Scheurmann’s findings of fact: ease, which pain resulted severe in his specify “The did not a date Til, back T12 and LI verte- on which an accident occurred but re- juvenile brae. This osteochrondrosis was only February, ferred plaintiff nature and the testified that from by described the accident stat- year year prior and a half to his ing: lifting ‘Under the stress of steel accepting employment at Kenway Engi- ” daily developed pain.’ accute low back neering experienced he no difficulties or However, at the-hearing plaintiff re- problems with his back. occurring counted an incident in mid-De- However, by February plaintiff cember, in handling slipped he while was having significant problems with his a piece of steel and struck his knee on the began back. He testified initial soreness Although alleged- saw table. the blow was December of gradually increased ly very painful, testified, plaintiff intensity through and duration January and he negative cause did not want to create a February. into He then went to a doctor impression employer, on his he did not re- X-rays for care. taken at time port it. A time hit short later he the same showed a spondylolysis in the lower lumbar knee piece scrap protruding on a metal region possible and a appendicolith. Fol- reported from a waste can and that incident lowing x-rays additional confirming the ex- supervisor. to his istence of appendicolith plaintiff appendectomy. plaintiff underwent an generally After recov- ery from appendectomy plaintiff above-mentioned with the han- By dling returned to work. identify June of he of the steel but could not again experiencing significant specific instance as pain adversely affecting back. He was seen three back. While the pains plaintiff different medi- back doctors, complained cal these February, consultations of in allegedly culminated in a laminectomy originated contemporaneously slip- and fusion of L5 SI level vertebrae July ping plaintiff incident introduced proof experienced direct realized plaintiff’s application for workmen’s specific damage to his back because of that compensation benefits was denied. Follow- incident. ing a hearing the administrative law judge fact, entered conclusions of law provides Section 35-1-45 denying and an order request- the benefits for industrial accidents when the employee: ed. After the plaintiff’s submission of “is ... equally It is well settled the or in the course

out or occurred, though even provided received accidental wheresoever required ordinary purposely was not self-inflicted.” exertion is that the same If an concluded course of employment.4 The administrative including compensation, injuries, inter unexpected not entitled incurs failures, ordinary he sustained duties he failed establish because nal caused of an identifiable injury eligible compen as a result he is employment Therefore, Pintar Quoting or accidents. ad sation under 35-1-45.5 Commission,1 judge ex- v. Industrial judges conclusion ministrative law plained: reflect our con and did not was erroneous therefore, temporary com- standard. prerequisite

“It is disability his be shown pensation that unexpected inju of an The existence result, gradual development as a however, beginning is the rather than ry, nature or condition of cause of the This inquiry. end Commission’s work, or an identifiable accident but from requires interpretation of 35-1-45 Court’s of the employ- in the course accidents a causal connection be the existence of ment.” injury tween the it is settled be jurisdiction, In this requirement in explained Wade this Justice brought an internal yond question Purity Biscuit:6 employ in about exertion the course in where “. . . a case of this kind within the mean ment be an accident bodily suffers an internal 35-1-45, requirement ing of without is on the failure or breakdown the burden result from some incident to show that the exertion happened suddenly and is identifiable cause thereof. contributing at least a this place.2 at a definite time and As words, in cases where ... explained Purity in Co. v. Industrial Biscuit or internal failure causes or disease Commission:3 causal connection there must be a Simp v. “In Cherdron Construction Co. employment injury.” between the 493, 593, 596, kins, P. this 61 Utah 214 of the ex- Many the determination times principle underlying court held that ‘[t]he connection between the istence of a causal happen must seems to be that the employment depend will on injury and the undesigned unexpected, suddenly, interpretation of medi- production place.’ at a time and In the definite expertise agency establish cal evidence. To Comm., 25, Hospital Dee 109 Utah [v. enacted 35-1-77. legislature in this area 163 P.2d case we have relaxed 331] provides: This section be sudden and at requirement it compen- “Upon filing of a claim for place definite time and so that essen accident, or for injury by now to be sation for requirement tial seems death, in the course of unexpected designed.” and not explained dissenting Commission, Justice Wolfe v. 14 2d 1. Pintar Industrial Utah 2, Robertson, 276, (1963). opinion supra at note 163 P.2d 382 P.2d 414 exertion or overexertion 338: “Thus where Co., Packing 121 Utah disability 2. Jones v. employment California causes the course of the 640, 612, 616, (1952); also 244 P.2d 642 see death, agree compensation should be I Comm., 25, Robertson v. Industrial allowed.” (1945); 163 331 D. Dee Memorial P.2d Thomas Hospital 61, v. Industrial Assoc. 3, 969; Biscuit, supra Purity at 201 P.2d note (1943); Hammond v. Industri 138 P.2d 233 Corp. 112 v. Industrial see M & K (1934). al 687 Utah 34 P.2d 84 (1948); 132 Robertson Utah 189 P.2d 2; Comm., supra note Andreason v. Industrial Purity Industrial Biscuit Co. v. Comm., 98 Utah (1949). 115 201 P.2d 4.Id., 201 P.2d at 969. aspects sion of the medical and where the carrier liability,

insurance denies the com- to a panel. medical shall refer aspects mission the medical medical . WILKINS, (concurring): This statute mandates submis be re- this matter should concur that sion of the aspects medical the case to referred to medical manded and the panel.7 however, Because, of con- injury, most cases internal flicting interpreting in this case law State requi determination the existence of the requirement statutory depends part site causal connection a worker must award of interpretation the accumulation and accident,” appro- “by I deem language evidence. analysis priate enlarge on the of this statute is clear. When an accidental injury, the main with a view found in case, present such as in the has occurred the the Industrial Commission providing of the submission of the apply. with a consistent standard to causation, including those is dissenting opinion The Mr. Chief Jus- of mandatory. necessity of tice Crockett centers on the hearing, At administrative inju- causes identifying “an accident” which

judge presented excluded certain evidence (hereafter ry. As Professor Arthur Larson by plaintiff hearsay because it was treatise, “Larson”) points out The thus inadmissible. 35-1-88 Section (1980), Law Compensation of Workmen’s “Neither nor commission its hear- ingredient indispensable basic and of “[t]he officers shall be bound the usual unexpectedness”.1 ‘accident’ is This Court statutory or common-law rules of evi- as recognized past much in cases.2 Lar- dence.” son continues: hearsay applica The rule has no however, ingredient, A second has been tion proceeding in a commission jurisdictions: added The injury in most hearing commission and its officers may traceable, must be within reasonable lim- receive any hearsay and consider evidence its, time, place, to a definite and occasion presented, to it.8 Therefore the administra widespread or cause. Justification of this tive law excluding erred in this evi entirely addition is not clear. When the dence basis hearsay rule. used, phrase injury” “accidental or is equivalent accident,” phrase “injury by Because the type is of a occasion, gram- there is a matter held by this Court to pur- fall within the mar, phrase read as if referred 35-1-45, view of Section the administrative accident,” “an proceed and then to con- law judge’s conclusion that no accident oc- duct a search for (empha- “the accident”.3 curred should not be reached from the facts original) sis in presented, without submission the matter case The is remanded main makes it clear that in to the Commission for further proceedings. Utah “accident” connotes an unlooked for Those proceedings shall mishap include the submis- expected designed.4 which is not or Lipman Utah, 7. v. Industrial 592 P.2d Residential Commercial & Construction Com (1979). pany Commission, supra. v. Industrial Ogden 8. See Iron Works Industrial IB 7-5. Larson at (1942). 132 P.2d 376 trial & Commercial Construction See, IB Larson at Commission, Utah, e. g., Purity 7-4, citing Biscuit Co. v. 529 P.2d 427 inter Company alia. Residential v. Indus (1949); 4. This is the often been cited Utah tion act Biscuit. interpreting Thorley & Co., language English ^[1903] adopted of the first A.C. 443. Fenton has workmen’s cases in including Purity English compensa- Fenton v. rules, Bearing in mind those the salient expresses Mr. Chief Justice Crockett controlling proposi- be the and what should requirement of without concern that not here is that the Commission was tion identifying an accident had met his persuaded that cases, effect would be “[t]he proving that he an acci- burden suffered insurer of make arising out of or in the course of dent well-being his employees”. health employment. view, my protection against unwarranted position taken this dissent does for internal failure is not awards that even disagree with the proposition acci- requiring identification of an found though preexisting has a ab- against protection dent. Rather condition, aggravated if it into a normal is medically requiring awards is found compensable injury disability by acci- causal connection between demonstrated dent arises occurs With the required by course of causation, the being primarily issue one statute, compensable. is Nor do statutorily mandated importance of there is question that if some It panel becomes manifest. an occur- produces exertion stress which the medical through expertise finds rence which the to come be able to make Commission should within the it can be definition the determination of whether compensable.3 found causally connect- sustained claimant disagreement with the main em- ed or contributed to the claimant’s “. it is opinion is its statement that ployment. an beyond question that internal settled expect applica- There is no reason to that about exertion in the brought in this case tion of standards laid down employment may of be accident course the insurers of the employers will render 1—45,with- meaning of within Sec. 35— of there is health their Rather requirement result out that every expect to that beneficent reason happened sudden- some incident which from of the purposes and humanitarian worker’s and and is identifiable at a definite time ly compensation act will be effectuated. place.” statement is not It is submitted that that STEWART, J., concurs in result. there- justified by cases cited of; case can be and I that doubt CROCKETT, (dissenting): Chief Justice the statement contrary, found. On the upon foundational rules which applicable with the squarely inconsistent statute, review the Commission’s rul- Court should law on the with all of the case and prerog- subject acquainted. are: that it is Commission’s with which am evidence, and ative to if there of first to test the soundness place justify basis therein to any reasonable just applicable is the proposition not finding, this Court should Commission’s 35-1^45, my judgment, Sec. statute. Conversely specifi- disturb it.1 stated and U.C.A.1953, no room doubt leaves applicable here: when the Commission cally plainly It misunderstanding. states has refused to find a work-connected acci- paid compensation is to simply that be dent, this not reverse and di- Court should “is when so finding rect such a unless the evidence is arising out of or the course by accident clear and all persuasive that reasonable should similarly There employment.” of must acting fairly misunderstanding minds thereon necessari- or confusion on be no “accident” im- find.2 the term ly proposition so Graybar Co. Ind. Kent v. Electric v. Ind. 57 P.2d 724. 568, 276 P. 161. Id.; v. and see Vause Ind. 2d 217, 407 P.2d 1006. bitrary failing ports unanticipat- must to find that the internal there be some occurrence, service-connected, ed event or different from what failure was we should normally expected to would occur upon set And aside its decision.”7 It usual course of events.4 is submitted explanation basis of his previously made study that a of numerous cases decided of prerogative that was the the Commis- subject, by this Court on the facts, from sion find the he dissented well, authorities as will reveal that without of reversal the Commission’s decision. exception, they have been with concerned Another good example principle whether was in there fact some incident or pase our involved is recent of IGA Food occurrence which would come within the There, Fair Martin.8 v. the applicant definition of is expressly re- undergoing unloading unusual exertion quired by the statute.5 and, shipment heavy of boxes meat Controversies this character so are extraordinary stress, cause suffered a common that such cases practi- are found in heart attack. The same comment is to be cally every volume the Utah Reporter; Comm.,9 made about Jones v. Ind. in which and it would serve no useful purpose being stress burden this page excessive citations. required balky repeatedly crank a motor brevity, the interest of it is sufficient to long 16-hour over double shift. say herein, that on of controversy is important It to realize that the removal import. cases are all generally similar the requirement there be some It seems fair to assume regarded event which can be (and opinion) the main would select those occurring course which give cases would best support for its employment, so appear it need only above, quoted upon thesis its disability developed that some reversal order Commission’s necessar- employee’s could related ily must rest. work, would be a change in our dramatic Comm.,6 case of Robertson law. The effect would be make which the main places is as reliance insurer of that as- good an example any. In that pect well-being the health and opinion burden of the main was to demon- might This be of temporary strate there was an ex- benefit to a few individuals in the labor in manipulating ertion skinning and ex- an force who have some But I infirmity. large horse, tra so that the heart seizure look, think if we take a second a rule such come would within the definition of such an would do them more than good harm unexpected occurrence and thus could be long run. found to be join an accident. I in the main become, opinion’s forcing employers approval of to rea- Wolfe’s effect, soning and statement of the law in his insurers of employees dissent that case. already plenti- He stated the stan- would add to review, dard applied rule which if to this ful burdens of going carrying into case would enterprises, affirm the jobs others, that: which furnish for compel “Unless evidence is such as to opportunities and would thus reduce the conclusion that the employment. Commission was ar- More especially, respect with Milling disease, 4. Tintic occupational v. Ind. Co. held to be and not 278; Carling 206 P. resulting v. Ind. 10 Utah 2d from accident. 260, 399 P.2d 202. 109 6. 163 Utah P.2d 331. Milling Mining 5. Tintic and v.Co. 60 Utah at Id. at 206 P. at 281 7. 163 P.2d at 341. gradually If the is incurred in the Utah, 8. 584 P.2d course thereof, and because specific and there is no event starting point, occurrence known as the it is 121 P.2d witnesses, timely report- there no no are infirmity, already have some persons to who relationship be- ing showing no of a adverse effect and be even more there would force work of the necessity would em- economic tween the because searching examina- give to more ployers applicant.

tions, anyone any hire with and refuse to question of reference to regard to physical disability history or indication panel: cites Sec. 35-1- Plaintiff acknowledge proposi- handicap. requires to refer Commission be this just should considered tion stated the case to medi- “the medical prerogative it only it thinks if true of cal ..” As is all stat- policy making change and a dramatic utes, given a and this one should be sensible view my law. Court has It is First, hypo- assume a practical application. prerogative; proper and that no such so thetical case in which the evidence was long term benefit of em- procedure for the disagree could clear that no one absolutely public generally ployers, employees no accident that the had suffered written, it is is follow statute as and his Would in the course of thereon; adjudications and if there is to merely yet be because maintained law, change in the any such dramatic benefits and the had filed an Then, legislature. should be done liability, the denied Commis- had change know of that everyone will to refer the compelled sion was nevertheless effect, law, how to gov- when it takes and panel. It seems idle case to a medical accord ern themselves in therewith. question, but the have to answer such a here, but question There course, answer, same reason- no. The a pre-existing diffi- plaintiff suffered ing applies here. Inasmuch back, previ- had for which he culty rest upon the of the Commission order and which ously received medical treatment considering the whole evi- proposition that junior he was in had existed at least since dence, plaintiff’s own particularly the school, prior to high eight years or nine upon there no basis testimony, fairly claim. As main itself con- was work-caused or find that there out, points himself properly would no useful nected there unequivocally that he could iden- referring non- purpose to be served tify any specific time or occurrence in aspects of the existent origin disability work as back. upon which it there is no basis Because response various questions concern- action of can be concluded that there was incident or oc- whether capricious, arbitrary or un- applicant’s currence from back reasonable, its I would affirm decision. resulted, repeatedly stated that Typical there was of these answers is: not. HALL, (dissenting): Schmidt, Q. you Mr. it true that isn’t join of Mr. Chief Justice in the dissent on your cannot relate the onset really I deem reflects accurate Crockett which back event pain any particular Particularly state the law Utah. you that occurred while were work- light pro- most recent this so in Kenway? nouncement of this Farmers Grain (R., 37) p. A. That’s true. Mason, Utah, evidence, On the basis of the whole judge, of the administrative law adopted by the simply proving

not met his burden of that an

accident occurred which caused the note

complained of. We further

Case Details

Case Name: Schmidt v. Industrial Commission of Utah

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 8, 1980

Citation: 617 P.2d 693

Docket Number: 16097

Court Abbreviation: Utah