 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. La-Z-Boy2/12/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not For Official Publication
Petitioner Shawn Martin seeks judicial review of a decision denying workers compensation benefits. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.
Martin's petition for review challenges the finding that the evidence demonstrated that he injured his back at home and not on the job , and the resulting conclusion that because the back injury was not work-related, he is not entitled to workers compensation benefits for those injuries. "When reviewing the factual findings made by an administrative agency, an appellate court will generally reverse only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). "An agency's application of law to its findings of fact will not be disturbed unless its determination 'exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.'" Johnson v. Department of Emp. Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (citation omitted). A party seeking to challenge a finding or conclusion must provide a transcript of all evidence pertaining to the finding or conclusion. See Utah R. App. P. 11(e)(2) ("If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by, or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion."). Neither the court nor the opposing party is obligated to correct deficiencies in the record. See id. In the absence of an adequate record, this court must presume that the evidence sufficiently supports the findings and conclusions. See Horton v. Gem State Mut., 794 P.2d 847, 849 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (stating that absent a transcript of relevant evidence, appellate court presumes judgment was supported by sufficient evidence).
Martin did not make arrangements to have a transcript of the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge prepared and included in the record transmitted to this court. The testimony and evidence presented at that hearing constitutes the record for purposes of judicial review of the decision. Although the exhibits are included in the agency record, this court's role is not to review the documentary evidence and determine the case anew, but to first determine whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the entire agency record, and then to determine whether the agency decision applying the law to the facts is reasonable and rational. We defer to the agency because "it stands in a superior position from which to evaluate and weigh the evidence and assess the credibility and accuracy of witnesses' recollections." Harken v. Board of Oil, Gas, & Mining, 920 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Utah 1996).
Under the circumstances, we determine the finding that the injury was not work-related was supported by substantial evidence and the denial of benefits on that basis was reasonable and rational. We affirm the decision of the Appeals Board.
James Z. Davis, Judge
Norman H. Jackson, Judge
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
|