 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Color Country Management v. Labor Commission12/6/2001
nistrative costs. In addition to the fiscal and administrative costs imposed by additional procedures, the delay and potential deprivation of benefits to claimants who have already met their initial burden of proving a compensable claim weighs heavily against Color Country, where the very purpose of the Act challenged is to do away with expense and delay and afford injured workers speedy, certain, and just compensation. Any claimed harm to employers and insurers in Color Country's position is also mitigated by the ability to spread the costs associated with the Act over an entire industry and then on to society as a whole by adjusting the appropriate rates of insurance premiums and charges. The procedures used by the Commission under section 35-1-67 and UAPA provided all the process that was constitutionally due before Color Country was deprived of its property interest. All things considered, Color Country's arguments are best directed to the Legislature. See Rekward v. Indus. Comm'n, 755 P.2d 166, 169 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (rejecting appellant's argument for creation of a fifth class of disability benefits not contained within the Act and stating problem was one for the Legislature).
Color Country's final argument is that the abstract should not have been issued by the second ALJ because there was no final order at the time. The Commission concedes this point in its brief, although Thomas does not.
The abstract was issued under Utah Code Ann. ยง 34A-2-212 (1997), which states that an abstract "of any final order providing an award" can be filed under the Act with the clerk of the district court. At the time the abstract was issued, in May of 2000, the second ALJ's findings, conclusions, and order based on the March 2000 hearing had not yet issued, and there was no oral ruling from the bench at that hearing. Thus, the only order the abstract could have been based on was the August 1998 order by the first ALJ, tentatively awarding permanent total disability benefits to Thomas. Color Country argues that the August 1998 order, upon which the abstract is based, was not a final order, and therefore, the abstract was issued in error. We agree.
The August 1998 order by the first ALJ made only a "tentative" award. Under Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Utah State Tax Commission, 2000 UT 40, 999 P.2d 17, agency action is not final if it is "preliminary, preparatory . . . or intermediate with regard to subsequent agency action." Id. at . Because the August 1998 order was of an interim nature, we conclude the order was not a final order, and hence, the abstract was improperly issued.
CONCLUSION
We reject Color Country's interpretation of section 35-1-67 and affirm the Commission's determination that the reemployment plan was not reasonable. We reject Color Country's claim that the Commission and the statute deprived it of due process of law. We also conclude that the abstract was improperly issued. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the order issuing the abstract, and otherwise affirm.
James Z. Davis, Judge.
WE CONCUR:
Norman H. Jackson, Associate Presiding Judge.
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|