94-0412. HORACE HANCEY vs. KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER Defendant.

CourtUtah
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0412. HORACE HANCEY vs. KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER Defendant THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHHORACE HANCEY, Applicant, vs. KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER, Defendant.Case No. 94-0412ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REVIEWHorace Hancey asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the Administrative Law Judge's decision granting Kennecott Utah Copper's motion to dismiss Mr. Hancey's claim 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. BACKGROUND Mr. Hancey alleges he suffered an industrial back injury while working for Kennecott during June 1984. He filed his claim for compensation under the workers' compensation system on May 2, 1994. Kennecott moved to dismiss Mr. Hancey's claim pursuant to Utah Code Ann. '35-1-99 (1981) on the grounds it was not filed within three years from the date of the accident or the date of the last payment of compensation. In considering Kennecott's motion to dismiss, the ALJ construed the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Hancey. Those facts, again construed favorably to Mr. Hancey, can be summarized as follows: During June 1984, Mr. Hancey suffered a back injury while working for Kennecott. He reported the injury to a foreman, then received attention at Kennecott's medical clinic. He received additional treatment at the clinic during July and August, 1984. Hancey did not file a claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Industrial Commission until May 1994. Kennecott has not paid any compensation to Hancey for the alleged accident. Based on the foregoing facts, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Hancey had failed to meet the three year filing requirement of '35-1-99. The ALJ therefore granted Kennecott's motion to dismiss. DISCUSSION The issue before the Industrial Commission is Kennecott's motion to dismiss Mr. Hancey's claim. Section 63-46b-1(4)(b) of the Utah Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA") permits the Industrial Commission to grant a motion to dismiss in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The thrust of Kennecott's motion to dismiss is that the Industrial Commission lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Hancey's claim because he...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT