94-0575. MICHELE MYRICK vs. AMOCO OIL COMPANY Defendant.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0575. MICHELE MYRICK vs. AMOCO OIL COMPANY Defendant THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHMICHELE MYRICK, Applicant, vs. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, Defendant.Case No. 94-0575ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEWAmoco Oil Company asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the Administrative Law Judge's decision holding Amoco liable for Michele Myrick's medical expenses, 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 On June 27, 19 93, Ms. Myrick injured her back while working for Amoco. Amoco denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits, prompting Ms. Myrick to file an Application For Hearing with the Commission's Adjudication Division. After a hearing, the ALJ ordered Amoco to pay temporary total disability compensation and medical expenses to Ms. Myrick. On June 21, 19 94, Ms. Myrick filed a second Application For Hearing for the purpose of compelling Amoco to pay for medical treatment she had received from Dr. Tobler. In its Answer, Amoco claimed it was not obligated to pay Dr. Tobler because he did not participate in Amoco's "preferred provider program." Amoco did not raise any other defenses to Ms. Myrick's claim. On November 10, 1994, the ALJ ruled that Amoco was responsible for Dr. Tobler's charges. Amoco then filed a Motion For Review raising two separate issues: First, Amoco requested a new hearing to challenge the necessity and reasonableness of Ms. Myrick's medical treatment. Second, Amoco asked the Commission to reverse the ALJ's finding that it is liable for Dr. Tobler's charges. DISCUSSION As noted above, Amoco asks the Commission for a new hearing on the subject of the reasonableness of Ms. Myrick's medical treatment. Although Amoco claims it raised this issue during proceedings before the ALJ, the Commission can find no mention of the issue in any of Amoco' s pleadings or other documents. It is well settled that a party waives all issues not raised at the appropriate time. For example, Rule 12(h), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that "(a) party...