94-0470. WILLIAM GOODRICH vs. FLOYD JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0470. WILLIAM GOODRICH vs. FLOYD JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHWILLIAM GOODRICH, Applicant, vs. FLOYD JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION and WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND OF UTAH, Defendants.Case No. 94-0470ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWilliam Goodrich asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review its prior order regarding his claim for benefits under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission exercises jurisdiction over Mr. Goodrich's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §63-46b-13 and Utah Admin. Code R568-1-4.O. ISSUES UNDER REVIEW Mr. Goodrich raises two substantive issues. First, he contends the Industrial Commission erred in finding he suffered only a 5% whole person impairment as a result of his industrial accident. Second, he contends the ALJ erred in computing his disability compensation on the basis of a 48 hour work week. In addition to the foregoing substantive issues, Mr. Goodrich also points out certain mathematical errors in the Industrial Commission's decision. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW With respect to the two substantive issues raised by Mr. Goodrich, the Industrial Commission finds no reason to modify its original decision. Mr. Goodrich contends the Industrial Commission should have applied the third edition of the A.M.A. Guides, rather than the fourth edition, in determining the extent of his permanent impairment. The Industrial Commission has reviewed both editions and finds the result to be the same regardless of which edition is used. Consequently, the Industrial Commission reaffirms its finding that Mr. Goodrich suffered a 5% whole person impairment. As to the hours Mr. Goodrich would have worked during the week of his injury, the evidence on this point is inconsistent. His first reported 40 to 48 hours. Later, he reported 50 to 60 hours. This second statement is contradicted not only by the first statement, but also by the fact he had not worked more than 40 hours per week in the weeks prior to the accident. The Industrial Commission also notes that Mr. Goodrich's first statement was made closer to the time of the accident. The Industrial Commission therefore accepts Mr. Goodrich's first statement as the most persuasive evidence of the extent of...