 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH v. MITY LITE6/5/1997
ponderance of the evidence that his industrial accident is the medical cause of his now claimed permanent total disability." While the Commission recognized that Smith's back impairment was "not inconsequential," it determined that "the medical panel and other physicians who have examined Mr. Smith find a consistent pattern of nonindustrial depression, somatoform pain disorder, opiate dependency, personality disorder and depression which are diagnosed as the cause of his inability to return to work." The Commission specifically adopted the medical panel's conclusion "that with adequate conditioning, Mr. Smith can perform light duty work."
Smith filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Commission denied. Smith now seeks review of the Commission's decision denying him permanent total disability benefits.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Smith asserts he established a prima facie case of permanent total disability, thereby requiring the Commission to follow the appropriate procedural requirements before it determines his entitlement to permanent total disability benefits.
We will affirm the Commission's findings only if they are "supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(g) (1993). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In applying the substantial evidence test, we review the whole record before the court. . . ." Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 63, 68 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (citations & quotation marks omitted). "When an agency has discretion to apply its factual findings to the law, we will not disturb the agency's application unless its determination exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality." VanLeeuwen v. Industrial Comm'n, 901 P.2d 281, 283 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (citations & quotation marks omitted).
ANALYSIS
Smith argues that the Commission's findings of fact — that Smith had incurred a significant permanent back impairment by virtue of the industrial accident and that he was unable to return to his prior work as a general laborer because of such impairment — establish that there was, in fact, medical causation, and therefore he met his burden of proof and presented a prima facie case of permanent total disability to the Commission. Smith further argues that the Commission erred in not applying the sequential decision-making process set forth in section 35-1-67 of the Utah Code and the odd lot doctrine, in determining that he was ineligible for permanent total disability benefits.
The Commission counters that its finding — that Smith failed to meet his burden of proving medical causation — is supported by the evidence, including the medical panel's report, the ALJ's Findings of Fact, and other medical records. Additionally, the Commission argues that because Smith failed to establish medical causation, it need not and indeed should not have addressed either the sequential decision-making process or the odd lot doctrine in making its determination of Smith's disability.
The Workers' Compensation Act provides, in pertinent part: "Each employee . . . who is injured . . . by accident arising
out of and in the course of his employment . . . shall be paid compensation for loss sustained on account of the injury." Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-45 (1988) (amended). Accordingly, a claimant must satisfy two prerequisites to receive compensation for an injury: "First, the injury must be 'by accident.' Second, . . . there [must] be a causal connection between the injury and the employment." Allen v. Industrial Comm'n, 729 P.2d 1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|