GENE ARREY, Petitioner,
v.
WALMART DISTRIBUTION CENTER and NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.
No. 17-0464
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions
Utah Labor Commission
December 4, 2020
ORDER
AFFIRMING ALJ’S DECISION
Jaceson R. Maughan, Utah Labor Commissioner
Gene
Arrey asks the Utah Labor Commission to review Administrative
Law Judge Decker’s denial of Mr. Arrey’s claim
for benefits under the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act,
Title 34A, Chapter 2, Utah Code Annotated.
The
Labor Commission exercises jurisdiction over this motion for
review pursuant to §63G-4-301 of the Utah Administrative
Procedures Act and §34A-2-801(4) of the Utah
Workers’ Compensation Act.
BACKGROUND
AND ISSUES PRESENTED
Mr.
Arrey claims workers’ compensation benefits for a
low-back condition that he attributes to repetitive trauma
while working for Walmart Distribution Center
(“Walmart”) and which first manifested in October
2016. Judge Decker held an evidentiary hearing and referred
the medical aspects of the claim to a medical panel. The
panel initially concluded that Mr. Arrey’s low-back
condition was not medically causally connected to his work
activities due to the timing of his symptoms, among other
factors. Mr. Arrey objected to the panel’s report and
Judge Decker had the panel reconsider its conclusions in
light of a correction regarding such timing. The panel noted
the correction, but reiterated its conclusion that Mr.
Arrey’s low-back condition was not medically caused by
his work activities.
Mr.
Arrey objected to the medical panel’s supplemental
report and submitted an opinion from his treating physician
as a rebuttal to the panel’s conclusions. Judge Decker
referred the opinion from Mr. Arrey’s treating
physician to the medical panel, which reviewed the opinion
and the reasoning behind it before ultimately reiterating its
previous conclusion on medical causation. The panel also
outlined its experience in and qualifications for treating
low-back problems such as those at issue in Mr. Arrey’s
case.
Judge
Decker relied on the medical panel’s conclusions over a
renewed objection from Mr. Arrey and found that he was not
entitled to benefits for his claim based on the lack of a
medical causal connection between his low-back condition and
his work activities. Mr. Arrey then sought review of Judge
Decker’s decision by arguing that it was error to rely
on the panel’s conclusions because it utilized an
improper standard to evaluate causation, showed bias against
him, and was not properly qualified to assess the medical
cause of his low-back condition. The Commission considered
Mr. Arrey’s arguments and rejected his allegation of
bias on the part of the medical panel members due to their
affiliation with the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational
and Environmental Health (RMCOEH). However, the Commission
determined that clarification on the proper standard of
medical causation was warranted. The Commission therefore
remanded the matter for the panel to apply such standard and
to associate, if necessary, with another physician who
specializes in neurology, orthopedics, or another area of
medicine pertinent to Mr. Arrey’s condition to provide
another perspective...
