93-1145. ARVA LEE DAY vs. PETROLANE GAS COMPANY AND/OR CONTINENTAL LOSS ADJUSTING COMPANY Defendant.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 93-1145. ARVA LEE DAY vs. PETROLANE GAS COMPANY AND/OR CONTINENTAL LOSS ADJUSTING COMPANY Defendant THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHARVA LEE DAY Applicant, vs. PETROLANE GAS COMPANY AND/OR CONTINENTAL LOSS ADJUSTING COMPANY, Defendant.Case No. 93-1145ORDER OF REMANDArva Lee Day asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the decision of an Administrative Law Judge which denied Ms. Day's application for medical expenses and permanent total disability compensation under Utah's Workers' Compensation Act. The Commission exercises jurisdiction over this Motion For Review pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §63-46b-12, Utah Code Ann. §35-1-82.53 and Utah Admin. Code R568-1-4.M. FINDINGS OF FACT Ms. Day alleges that on June 23, 1988, she was injured while working for Petrolane. On January 6, 1992, she filed an Application For Hearing for medical expense and permanent total disability compensation. On December 8, 1992, the ALJ issued her decision on Ms. Day's Application. In her decision, the ALJ expressly declined to rule on Ms. Day's claim to permanent disability compensation, on the grounds such claim was not yet ready for decision. The ALJ denied Ms. Day's claim for medical expenses on the grounds that Ms. Day had failed to establish that her medical treatment was necessary as a result of any work related injury. On October 5, 1993, Ms. Day submitted a second Application For Hearing, again requesting payment of medical expenses and permanent total disability compensation. Petrolane and its insurance carrier, Continental Loss Adjusting Company (jointly referred to as "Petrolane" hereafter) filed a Motion To Dismiss, contending that Ms. Day's claims had already been decided by the ALJ' s decision of December 8, 1992. The ALJ granted Petrolane's Motion To Dismiss. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The question before the Commission is whether the issues raised in Ms. Day's Application of October 5, 19 93 have already been adjudicated by the ALJ's decision of December 8, 19 92. The ALJ's decision of December 8, 1992 is ambiguous, internally inconsistent, and therefore confusing in some respects. For example, the ALJ states that Ms. Day's attorney reserved the issue of Ms. Day's permanent total disability claim "until such time as it may be ripe." The ALJ did not specifically rule on whether such...