ZOLA MAE PRICE, Petitioner,
v.
DOUG KNELL ENTERPRISES and WCF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.
No. 20-0470
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions
Utah Labor Commission
December 23, 2020
ORDER
AFFIRMING ALJ’S DECISION
Kathleen Bounous, Chair
Zola
Mae Price asks the Appeals Board of the Utah Labor Commission
to review Administrative Law Judge Trayner’s denial of
Ms. Price’s claim for benefits under the Utah
Workers’ Compensation Act, Title 34A, Chapter 2, Utah
Code Annotated.
The
Appeals Board 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
Ms.
Price previously claimed workers’ compensation benefits
for injuries to her low back, neck, and shoulder stemming
from a work accident that occurred on March 3, 1995, while
she was working for Doug Knell Enterprises. On December 31,
1997, Ms. Price entered into a settlement agreement on her
claim with Doug Knell Enterprises and its insurance carrier,
Workers Compensation Fund (collectively referred to as
“DKE”), which provided for regular payments
consistent with an offset of permanent total disability
compensation against future social security benefits
according to the statutory standard in effect at the time.
Ms. Price now seeks increased benefits for her work injuries
beyond the compensation she agreed to as part of the
settlement.
Ms.
Price submits that the Commission should exercise its
continuing jurisdiction over her original claim to increase
her benefits based on precedent invalidating offsets between
permanent total disability compensation payments against
social security benefits and in line with the present minimum
rate for permanent total disability compensation. DKE
responded to Ms. Price’s present claim by filing a
motion to dismiss the claim based on the terms of the
settlement agreement. Judge Trayner considered the
parties’ motions and concluded that Ms. Price was bound
by the terms of the settlement agreement from 1997, including
the rate of weekly benefits agreed to by the parties. Judge
Trayner therefore dismissed Ms. Price’s current claim
for benefits.
Ms.
Price now seeks review of Judge Trayner’s dismissal by
arguing that the Appeals Board should exercise its continuing
jurisdiction to set aside the parties’ settlement
agreement. Ms. Price argues that there was no bona fide
dispute with regard to her claim and that the settlement
should be rescinded to allow for an increase in the weekly
payments she receives because she did not waive her right to
any such increase. Ms. Price contends that developments in
the statutory minimum payments for permanent total disability
compensation along with precedent...
