94-0261. LINDA MASON vs. MANPOWER INC. dba MK INC. and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0261. LINDA MASON vs. MANPOWER INC. dba MK INC. and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHLINDA MASON, Applicant, vs. MANPOWER INC. dba MK, INC. and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH, Defendants.Case No. 94-0261ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLinda Mason asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to reconsider its decision dated June 2, 1995, regarding Ms. Mason's claim for benefits under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission of Utah exercises jurisdiction over this request for reconsideration pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §63-46b-13 and Utah Admin. Code R568-1-4.O. FINDINGS OF FACT Except as noted below, the Industrial Commission reaffirms its findings of fact set forth in its original decision. The Industrial Commission modifies the finding set forth in paragraph 5, page two, of its previous decision as follows:

Dr. Provost released Ms. Mason to full duty work on December 21, 1992. He also concluded that Ms. Mason's wrist injuries were caused by her work for Manpower and had resulted in 20% permanent partial impairment of the whole person. Dr. Provost explained that his 20% overall impairment rating included an allowance for loss of range of motion and an additional allowance "given on an arbitrary basis for decreased grip strength." However, Dr. Provost went on to comment that "(i)f the 17 percent impairment rating for grip strength is disregarded, she (Ms. Mason) would have an 11 percent permanent partial impairment . . . ." In arriving at the foregoing impairment rating, Dr. Provost reported that he had relied upon the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Third Edition ("AMA Guides" hereafter).

The Industrial Commission modifies the finding set forth in paragraph 6, page two, of its previous decision as follows:

Manpower arranged for Ms. Mason to be examined by Dr. Sellers, who generally concurred with Dr. Provost's conclusions. However, Dr. Sellers noted that under the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, Ms. Mason's loss of grip strength was already accounted for in the impairment rating derived from her loss of motion.

DISCUSSION Ms. Mason's first contention in her request for reconsideration is that the Industrial Commission's previous order fails to meet the requirements...