EDUARDO NARCISO, Petitioner,
v.
HB CONSTRUCTION, AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWNERS INSURANCE CO., Respondents.
No. 18-0482
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions
Utah Labor Commission
November 30, 2020
ORDER
ON MOTION FOR REVIEW
ORDER
OF REMAND
Jaceson R. Maughan, Utah Labor Commissioner
Eduardo
Narciso asks the Utah Labor Commission to review
Administrative Law Judge Newman’s order of
reimbursement to HB Construction and its insurance carrier,
Auto Owners Insurance Company, (collectively referred to as
“HB”) regarding Mr. Narciso’s award of
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.
Narciso sustained multiple head and vertebral fractures and a
traumatic brain injury causing severely impaired cognitive
function as a result of a work accident on May 6, 2013. Mr.
Narciso was working for HB when the accident occurred, but
other parties were involved in both the construction project
on which he was working and the accident that led to his
injury. Mr. Narciso pursued a tort claim against the other
parties involved in the accident. He eventually entered into
a settlement agreement for a total of $5,000,000 and received
$2,850,381.11 in proceeds after attorney fees and costs were
deducted.
Mr.
Narciso presently claims workers’ compensation benefits
for his traumatic brain injury, including medical benefits,
permanent total disability compensation, and a proportionate
share of the third-party tort recovery. HB answered Mr.
Narciso’s application for hearing by noting that his
claim for permanent total disability benefits had already
been accepted and that all benefits have been paid to him.
The main issue in dispute was the proper apportionment of
HB’s share of attorney fees and costs in obtaining the
tort recovery. This figure is necessary to determine the
offset to which HB is entitled against its liability for Mr.
Narciso’s benefits.
Judge
Newman held an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Narciso’s
claim and determined that the parties’ dispute turned
on a question of whether undefined future benefits should be
included in determining HB’s proportionate share of...
