94-0832. TOM DODD JR. v. H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT/HORSETHIEF RANCH; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 94-0832. TOM DODD JR. v. H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT/HORSETHIEF RANCH; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHTOM DODD, JR., Applicant, v. H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT/HORSETHIEF RANCH; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND, Defendants. Case No. 94-0832ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATIONDefendant Michael Behrendt asks the Industrial Commission of Utah to clarify its order of remand in the above-entitled case. The Industrial Commission of Utah exercises jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §63-46b-12, Utah Code Ann. §35-1-82.53 and Utah Admin. Code R568-1-4.M. ISSUE UNDER REVIEW On remand of Mr. Dodd's claim against Mr. Behrendt for workers' compensation benefits, is Mr. Behrendt entitled to present evidence on the issue of his status as an "agricultural" or "domestic" employer under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"). BACKGROUND On March 24, 1995, the Administrative Law Judge conducted a hearing on Tom Dodd, Jr.'s claim against Mr. Behrendt for workers' compensation benefits. After Mr. Dodd and his witness testified, but before Mr. Behrendt presented his evidence, the ALJ granted Mr. Behrendt's motion to dismiss Mr. Dodd's claim. The ALJ dismissed the claim on the grounds that, with respect to his employment of Mr. Dodd, Mr. Behrendt was either an agricultural employer or a domestic employer and therefore exempt from the requirements of the Act. Mr. Dodd then asked the Industrial Commission to review the ALJ's determination. In an order dated September 7, 1995, the Industrial Commission concluded that Mr. Behrendt was not an agricultural or domestic employer and was, therefore, subject to the Act. The Industrial Commission remanded Mr. Dodd's claim to the ALJ for further proceedings to resolve the remaining issues presented by Mr. Dodd's claim. On September 18, 1995, the Industrial Commission received Mr. Behrendt's motion for clarification, in which he argued that the Industrial Commission's order of remand should not preclude him from presenting evidence regarding his status as an agricultural or domestic employer. The Industrial Commission received Mr. Dodd's response on September 20, 1995. DISCUSSION After reviewing the record in this matter, the...