94-0289. DAVID GEORGE BARTHOLOMEW vs. K and J CONSTRUCTION UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND HEARTHSTONE DEVELOPMENT and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0289. DAVID GEORGE BARTHOLOMEW vs. K and J CONSTRUCTION UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND HEARTHSTONE DEVELOPMENT and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHDAVID GEORGE BARTHOLOMEW, Applicant, vs. K and J CONSTRUCTION, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND, HEARTHSTONE DEVELOPMENT, and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND, Defendants.Case No. 94-0289ORDER OF REMANDThe Uninsured Employers' Fund asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the Administrative Law Judge's award of permanent partial disability compensation to David G. Bartholomew pursuant to 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. BACKGROUND Mr. Bartholomew injured his wrist while working for K and J Construction and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Defendants to Mr. Bartholomew's claim were K and J Construction, Mr. Bartholomew's uninsured employer; the Uninsured Employers' Fund ("UEF" hereafter); Hearthstone Development, a potential statutory employer; and the Workers' Compensation Fund as Hearthstone's insurance carrier. After a hearing, the ALJ held that Hearthstone was not Mr. Bartholomew's statutory employer. The ALJ therefore dismissed Hearthstone and the Workers' Compensation Fund as defendants. The ALJ then concluded that Mr. Bartholomew had suffered a compensable injury and proceeded to determine the amount of his benefits. In addition to temporary total disability compensation for 34.286 weeks, the ALJ also awarded permanent partial disability compensation for 40.56 weeks, based on the following finding of fact:

6. Mr. Bartholomew was treated and examined by the orthopedic surgeon C. William Bacon, M.D. Dr. Bacon's examination and report indicated that Mr. Bartholomew has a 13 percent whole body impairment. No conflicting medical evidence was presented. (Emphasis added.)

UEF then filed a motion for review challenging the propriety of Dr. Bacon's rating of Mr. Bartholomew's impairment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UEF argues that Dr. Bacon's rating of Mr. Bartholomew's impairment is improper because the rating includes an allowance for possible future impairment that has not yet developed. Mr. Bartholomew...