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that he utilized an outdated case precedent to determine the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...