94-0108 94-0244. SAMANTHA MANSEAU vs. PRIDE TRANSPORT and USFandG INSURANCE Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0108 94-0244. SAMANTHA MANSEAU vs. PRIDE TRANSPORT and USFandG INSURANCE Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHSAMANTHA MANSEAU, Applicant, vs. PRIDE TRANSPORT and USFandG INSURANCE, Defendants.Case No: 94-0108 94-0244ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEWSamantha Manseau asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the Administrative Law Judge's Order denying Mrs. Manseau's application for benefits under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission of Utah 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 The Commission adopts the findings of fact set forth in the decision of the ALJ. In summary, on July 30, 1989, Ms. Manseau and her husband were driving a truck through Nebraska for Pride Transport. As they passed under an overpass, rocks thrown from the overpass shattered the truck's windshield. Mrs. Manseau was injured in the foregoing incident. Mr. Manseau immediately pulled their truck to the side of the road and summoned help. A local sheriff's officer investigated the incident. Ms. Manseau was taken by ambulance to the local hospital's emergency room for medical treatment. The employer was also notified of the incident. The Sheriff's Department, the ambulance company, the emergency room report and the Employer's First Report of Injury each report that Ms. Manseau suffered injury to her eyes. None of the four independent reports indicate that she suffered any trauma to her nose. Mrs. Manseau returned to Salt Lake City five days after the accident. Over the next several months, she discussed the incident and her injuries with her employer, family members, an insurance adjuster and her physician. At no time during these discussions did she mention any injury to her nose. A year after the foregoing incident, Ms. Manseau sought medical treatment for a septal perforation of her nose. Initially, she did not claim that the septal perforation was related to the work-related injuries. Later, she reported she had hit her nose on the truck dashboard. Relying on this modified account of Mrs. Manseau's injury, treating physicians Dr. Morrison and Dr. Sonkens concluded that the accident had caused her perforated nasal septum. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS...