CECILIA SALAZAR, Petitioner,
v.
CONAGRA FOODS and OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO., Respondents.
No. 17-0593
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions
Utah Labor Commission
December 21, 2020
ORDER
AFFIRMING ALJ’S DECISION
Kathleen Bounous, Chair.
Cecilia
Salazar asks the Appeals Board of the Utah Labor Commission
to review Administrative Law Judge Jonsson’s partial
denial of Ms. Salazar’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.
Salazar claims workers’ compensation benefits for a
left-shoulder injury she sustained while working for Conagra
Foods (“Conagra”) on October 30, 2013. Judge
Jonsson held hearings on Ms. Salazar’s claim and
referred the medical aspects of the claim to an impartial
medical panel. The panel determined Ms. Salazar’s work
activities on the date of the accident medically caused a
left-arm strain and not a left rotator-cuff injury.
Judge
Jonsson relied on the medical panel’s conclusions over
Ms. Salazar’s objection and awarded her the cost of
medical care necessary to treat Ms. Salazar’s
left-shoulder injury as outlined by the panel. Ms. Salazar
sought review of Judge Jonsson’s decision by arguing
that it was error to refer the medical aspects of the case to
a medical panel. Ms. Salazar also argued that the medical
panel’s opinion was unreliable and that the panel
members did not have the requisite expertise to offer a
qualified opinion on the medical aspects of the case.
The
Appeals Board rejected Ms. Salazar’s argument on the
medical panel referral, but determined that the matter should
be remanded to confirm the panel members’
qualifications and for the panel to consider certain physical
therapy records from Conagra’s in-house clinic that
were not included in the medical evidence. On remand, the
panel outlined its qualifications in treating shoulder
injuries such as the one at issue in Ms. Salazar’s
case. The panel also determined that the physical therapy
notes did not alter its opinion that Ms. Salazar’s work
activities on the date in question resulted in a strain and
not a rotator-cuff injury.
Judge
Jonsson again relied on the medical panel’s conclusions
and awarded Ms. Salazar the cost of medical care necessary to
treat her left-arm strain as determined by the panel. Judge
Jonsson denied Ms. Salazar’s remaining claims for
benefits. Ms. Salazar seeks review of Judge Jonsson’s
latest order by arguing that this case should be remanded so
Ms. Salazar can offer evidence in rebuttal of the physical
therapy notes that were considered by the medical panel on
remand and so she can examine the medical panel members at a
supplemental...
