AMBER TIPPETTS, Petitioner,
v.
ALPHA CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS, INC., ALPHA PLASTICS, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA, Respondents.
No. 16-0425
Utah Workers Compensation Decisions
Utah Labor Commission
November 6, 2020
ORDER
AFFIRMING ALJ’S DECISION
Jaceson R. Maughan ,Utah Labor Commissioner
Amber
Tippetts asks the Utah Labor Commission to review
Administrative Law Judge Stewart’s denial of Ms.
Tippetts’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 ISSUE PRESENTED
Ms.
Tippetts claims workers’ compensation benefits for a
right-shoulder injury that she attributes to an accident that
occurred on June 6, 2014, while she was working for Alpha
Consolidated Holdings, Inc. and Alpha Plastics, Inc.
(collectively referred to as “Alpha”). Ms.
Tippetts also claims benefits for a left-shoulder condition
she attributes to her work for Alpha from December 22, 2014,
to April 7, 2015. Judge Stewart held an evidentiary hearing
and referred the medical aspects of Ms. Tippetts’s
claim to an impartial medical panel. The medical panel opined
that Ms. Tippetts’s right-shoulder and left-shoulder
problems were not medically causally connected to her
employment with Alpha.
Ms.
Tippetts objected to the medical panel’s report after
asserting that the panel erred regarding the mechanism of her
injuries. Judge Stewart had the medical panel issue a
subsequent report, in which the panel reiterated that Ms.
Tippetts’s shoulder problems were the result of
preexisting conditions and not the work exposure in question.
Judge Stewart relied on the panel’s conclusions over
Ms. Tippetts’s renewed objection and denied her claim
for benefits.
Ms.
Tippetts sought review of Judge Stewart’s decision by
arguing that it was error to rely on the medical
panel’s conclusions because the panel did not consider
the totality of the circumstances of the mechanism of her
right-shoulder injury. Ms. Tippetts also argued that the
panel erred regarding her left-shoulder condition. The
Commission agreed with Judge Stewart’s conclusion that
Ms. Tippetts had not established entitlement to benefits for
her right-shoulder injury. However, the Commission noted that
the medical panel’s statement regarding the onset of
left-shoulder symptoms was not reflective of the evidence in
the record. The Commission therefore remanded Ms.
Tippetts’s claim for benefits related to her left
shoulder to Judge Stewart so he could obtain clarification
from the panel on Ms. Tippetts’s left-shoulder
condition.
On
remand, the medical panel noted that Ms. Tippetts experienced
left-shoulder symptoms earlier than initially recognized.
However, the panel concluded that a congenital deformity was
the medical cause of...
