95-0069. CHAD CRAPO vs. WHEREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC. and ITT HARTFORD Defendants.

• Court: Utah

Utah Workers Compensation Decisions 1995. 95-0069. CHAD CRAPO vs. WHEREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC. and ITT HARTFORD Defendants THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAHCHAD CRAPO, Applicant, vs. WHEREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and ITT HARTFORD, Defendants.Case No. 95-0069ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEWChad Crapo asks The Industrial Commission of Utah to review the Administrative Law Judge's denial of Mr. Crapo's claim for benefits under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission 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. FINDINGS OF FACT This matter is before the Industrial Commission for review of the ALJ's order granting the motion to dismiss of Wherehouse Entertainment and ITT Hartford (referred to jointly as "Wherehouse" hereafter). The evidence therefore must be construed in the light most favorable to Mr. Crapo. Mindful of the foregoing standard and having reviewed the available evidence, the Industrial Commission adopts the facts set forth in the decision of the ALJ. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Section 35-1-45 of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act") provides in material part as follows:

Each employee . . . who is injured . . . by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, . . . if the accident is not purposely self-inflicted, shall be paid compensation . . . . (Emphasis added.)

The foregoing provision is the foundational test to determine whether an injury is compensable under Utah's workers' compensation system. Under the test, injuries from accidents arising out of and in the course of employment are compensable, but injuries arising from accidents "purposely self-inflicted" are not compensable. The Industrial Commission is well aware of the nearly tragic aspects of this case and the pain and suffering of Mr. Crapo, his family and friends. Nevertheless, the only issue before the Industrial Commission is whether Mr. Crapo's injuries are the result of a purposely self inflicted accident. The Industrial Commission adopts the discussion and reasoning of the ALJ on this point and concludes, as did the ALJ, that the accident in question was purposely self inflicted within the meaning of the §35-1-45 of the Act. ORDER The Industrial...