93-1252. RANDY DIMMICK vs. UTAH POWER and LIGHT CO. WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH and ENERGY MUTUAL INSURANCE Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 93-1252. RANDY DIMMICK vs. UTAH POWER and LIGHT CO. WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH and ENERGY MUTUAL INSURANCE Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHRANDY DIMMICK, Applicant, vs. UTAH POWER and LIGHT CO., WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH and ENERGY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Defendants,Case No. 93-1252ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REVIEWThe Workers Compensation Fund of Utah ("WCF" hereafter) asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the Administrative Law Judge's award of medical benefits to Randy Dimmick pursuant to the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. Additionally, WCF asks the Industrial Commission to review the ALJ's dismissal of Energy Mutual as a defendant in this proceeding. Mr. Dimmick has also filed a motion for review challenging the ALJ's dismissal of Energy Mutual. The Industrial Commission exercises jurisdiction over these motions 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. BACKGROUND The Industrial Commission adopts the findings of fact set forth in the ALJ's decision, summarized as follows. On July 22, 1981, while working as a coal miner for Utah Power and Light ("UPandL" hereafter), Mr. Dimmick injured his back in a work-related accident. He underwent surgery for removal of a ruptured disc on September 24, 1981 and was released to work on February 2, 1982. On March 22, 1982, again while working for UPandL, Mr. Dimmick was injured in a mine cave-in, thereby aggravating the injury he had suffered in the first accident. He underwent back surgery a second time on September 3, 1982. At the time of Mr. Dimmick's first injury, WCF provided workers' compensation insurance for UPandL. At the time of his second injury, Energy Mutual was UPandL's workers' compensation carrier. After his second injury, Mr. Dimmick filed an application for workers' compensation benefits. The case was referred to a medical panel, which concluded that Mr. Dimmick's initial accident had necessitated his first surgery. The medical panel likewise concluded that his second accident had necessitated his second surgery. The medical panel did not express an opinion as to whether Mr. Dimmick would require future medical care, or whether such future medical care should be attributed to the first or second industrial injury. In an order dated...