Rios v. Macey’s, 120920 UTWC, 19-0342

Case DateDecember 09, 2020
CourtUtah
JUAN RIOS, Petitioner,
v.
MACEY’S and PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.
No. 19-0342
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions
Utah Labor Commission
December 9, 2020
         ORDER AFFIRMING ALJ’S DECISION           Jaceson R. Maughan, Utah Labor Commissioner          Macey’s and its insurance carrier, Phoenix Insurance Company, (collectively referred to as “Maceys”) asks the Utah Labor Commission to review Administrative Law Judge Decker’s award of benefits to Juan Rios under the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act, Title 34A, Chapter 2, Utah Code Annotated.          The Labor Commission exercises jurisdiction over this motion for review pursuant to §63G-4-301 of the Utah Administrative Procedures Act and §34A-2-801(4) of the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act.          BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED          Mr. Rios claims workers’ compensation benefits for a left-shoulder injury he attributes to repetitive trauma for the period of May 2009 to February 7, 2019, while he was working for Maceys. Maceys disputed Mr. Rios’s claim by arguing that it should be considered under an occupational-disease theory rather than an industrial accident due to repetitive trauma during the period alleged. Judge Decker held an evidentiary hearing and referred the medical aspects of Mr. Rios’s claim to an impartial medical panel. The medical panel determined that Mr. Rios’s work activities permanently aggravated his chronic, pre-existing degeneration in his left shoulder and that such aggravation required surgical repair on an industrial basis.          Maceys objected to the medical panel’s report by arguing that clarification was necessary with regard to the temporary or permanent nature of Mr. Rios’s left-shoulder injury. Judge Decker had the panel clarify its conclusions and issue a supplemental report, after which there were no further objections. Judge Decker relied on the medical panel’s clarified conclusions and determined that Mr. Rios’s claim was properly analyzed as an industrial accident due to repetitive trauma during the period in question. Judge Decker found that Mr. Rios established entitlement to benefits for his left-shoulder injury under the repetitive-trauma theory and awarded benefits to him.          Maceys now seeks review of Judge Decker’s decision by arguing that he utilized an outdated case precedent to determine the proper analysis of Mr. Rios’s claim. Maceys submits that Mr. Rios is not entitled to benefits under a repetitive-trauma theory. Alternatively, Maceys contends that this matter should be remanded so the medical panel can apportion the industrial and non-industrial causes of Mr. Rios’s left-shoulder condition under an occupational-disease theory.          FINDINGS OF FACT          The Commission adopts Judge Decker’s findings of fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT