Ameritemps, Inc. v. Labor Com'n
| Decision Date | 10 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 20040953-CA.,20040953-CA. |
| Citation | 2005 UT App 491,128 P.3d 31 |
| Parties | AMERITEMPS, INC. and/or Hartford Insurance, Petitioners, v. LABOR COMMISSION, Workers' Compensation Fund, American Asbestos Abatement, and Johnny Albert, Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Theodore E. Kanell and Joseph C. Alamilla, Plant Christensen & Kanell, Salt Lake City, for Petitioners.
Richard R. Burke, King Burke & Schaap PC, James R. Black, Black and Ingleby, Alan L. Hennebold, and Floyd W. Holm, Salt Lake City, for Respondents.
Before Judges McHUGH, ORME, and THORNE, Jr.
¶ 1 Ameritemps, Inc. (Ameritemps) and Hartford Insurance (collectively, Petitioners) seek judicial review of the Utah Labor Commission (Commission) Appeals Board's (Board) denial of their motion for review of a decision of a Commission Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarding Johnny Albert permanent total disability compensation benefits. See Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-413 (Supp.2005).1 We affirm.
¶ 2 Over the span of approximately seven years, Albert was injured in a number of industrial accidents that occurred while he was working for various employers. With the exception of his final accident, Albert returned to work after each incident, despite having suffered some level of whole person impairment. In his final industrial accident, which occurred on June 16, 1997, while he was working for Ameritemps, Albert severely injured his left foot. Although he had four separate surgeries to correct the problems that resulted from this injury, Albert never returned to work.
¶ 3 Thereafter, Albert filed a claim with the Commission against Ameritemps for, among other things, permanent total disability compensation benefits. On December 17, 2002, a hearing was held before the ALJ, which addressed numerous claims Albert had filed with the Commission, including his claims against Ameritemps. Albert's other claims were for disability benefits arising out of industrial accidents that occurred while he was working for employers other than Ameritemps. On July 22, 2003, the ALJ issued a decision regarding Albert's claims.
¶ 4 As an initial matter, the ALJ noted in the decision that all of the parties opposing Albert's claims, including Ameritemps, had "conceded that [he] was permanently and totally disabled," but that each party "alleged that an injury other than the one respectively defended by [each party] directly caused [Albert]'s permanent and total disability." The ALJ found, based upon a medical evaluation contained in the record, that the left foot injury Albert had suffered while working for Ameritemps "caused him a 4% whole person impairment." The ALJ also found that
the preponderance of the evidence in this case revealed that despite the legion of medical and psychological impairments accumulated by [Albert] during the course of his life, he remained able to work until the injury he sustained on June 16, 1997[,] with Ameritemps. [His left foot injury] on June 16, 1997, with the subsequent four surgeries and 4% whole person permanent impairment, proved to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. [Albert] never returned to work after the June 16, 1997 industrial accident, and thereafter by consensus remained permanently and totally disabled.
¶ 5 Based upon these findings, the applicable statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-413 (Supp.2005), and the odd-lot doctrine, see, e.g., Peck v. Eimco Process Equip. Co., 748 P.2d 572, 574-75 (Utah 1987); Zupon v. Industrial Comm'n, 860 P.2d 960, 963-64 (Utah Ct.App.1993), the ALJ concluded that Albert was permanently totally disabled and that the June 16, 1997 industrial accident, which occurred while Albert was employed by Ameritemps, "directly caused his permanent total disability." Accordingly, the ALJ entered an award of permanent total disability compensation benefits in favor of Albert and against Petitioners.
¶ 6 On August 21, 2003, Petitioners filed a motion for review with the Board. On May 2, 2004, the Board issued an order denying Petitioners' motion, affirming and adopting the ALJ's factual findings, and affirming the ALJ's decision as it applied to Petitioners. Petitioners now seek judicial review of that order.
¶ 7 Petitioners argue that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the Board's order. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction presents a question of law, which we review for correctness. See Beaver County v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81, ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 1147.
¶ 8 Petitioners also argue that there is evidence in the record that precludes an award of permanent total disability compensation benefits to Albert and, as such, the Board incorrectly applied the law to the facts in this case. When reviewing the Board's decision, we will disturb its factual findings only if they are "not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(g) (2004). Further, "[w]hen an agency has discretion to apply its factual findings to the law, we will not disturb the agency's application unless its determination exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality." Smith v. Mity Lite, 939 P.2d 684, 686 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (quotations and citation omitted).
¶ 9 Before arguing their challenge to the Board's substantive decision, Petitioners argue that there has been no final agency action creating subject matter jurisdiction in this court because the ALJ and the Board did not complete the two-step process set forth under the Workers' Compensation Act for establishing permanent total disability. See Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-413 (Supp.2005). In response, the Commission, Albert, American Asbestos Abatement, and Workers' Compensation Fund (collectively, Respondents) assert that Petitioners failed to preserve this issue for appeal and waived any argument that Albert is not permanently totally disabled. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
¶ 10 Petitioners concede that they did not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction prior to their brief with this court. Notwithstanding that admission, we may consider it: "[Q]uestions regarding subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time because such issues determine whether a court has authority to address the merits of a particular case." Housing Auth. v. Snyder, 2002 UT 28, ¶ 11, 44 P.3d 724. In addition, because subject matter jurisdiction is a prerequisite to this court's power to consider the substantive issues, the requirement that the court have proper jurisdiction over the subject of the dispute cannot be waived. See, e.g., Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 34, 100 P.3d 1177; Barnard v. Wassermann, 855 P.2d 243, 248 (Utah 1993). Issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction are threshold questions that should be addressed before resolving other claims. See Snyder, 2002 UT 28 at ¶ 11, 44 P.3d 724. Because we conclude that Petitioners' challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is properly before us, we consider it before addressing their challenge to the Board's substantive decision.
¶ 11 The Utah Administrative Procedures Act grants jurisdiction to the appellate courts over "final agency action[s]." Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-14(1), (3)(a) (2004). Thus, the first issue for consideration is whether the Board's decision finding Albert permanently totally disabled is a "final agency action," id., over which this court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction. To answer that question, we must examine the specific statutory provisions involved.
¶ 12 The procedure for establishing permanent total disability is set forth in the Workers' Compensation Act. See id. § 34A-2-413. Under that statutory scheme, the injured employee must first meet his or her burden of establishing permanent total disability and causation by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. § 34A-2-413(1)(b). The Commission must then consider the evidence to determine whether the employee is permanently totally disabled and unable to perform reasonably available work. See id. § 34A-2-413(1)(c). Before disability benefits can be awarded, however, the Commission must follow a two-step process outlined in section 34A-2-413. See id. § 34A-2-413(6). The Utah Supreme Court explained the procedure for awarding such benefits in Thomas v. Color Country Management, 2004 UT 12, 84 P.3d 1201, stating:
Section 34A-2-413(6) outlines the process an administrative law judge must follow when determining whether an injured employee is entitled to permanent total disability compensation. This section requires that a finding be issued in two parts — an initial finding and a final finding. The initial finding of permanent total disability triggers a review period in which the employer or its insurance carrier may submit a reemployment plan. [See Utah Code Ann.] § 34A-2-413(6)(a)(ii), (d). This subsection specifically states that the initial "finding by the [C]ommission of permanent total disability is not final, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, until" the employer has the opportunity to submit a reemployment plan, the administrative law judge reviews this reemployment plan and the reemployment activities undertaken pursuant to statute, and the administrative law judge holds a hearing. Id. § 34A-2-413(6)(a). The intent of the reemployment plan is to determine whether the injured employee can be rehabilitated in order to reenter the workforce, and a final finding of permanent total disability is held in reserve until the possibilities of reemployment are either exhausted or abandoned. Only after all of these requirements have been met does the finding of permanent total disability become final.
Thomas, 2004 UT 12 at ¶ 21, 84 P.3d 1201. The Board's decision in this case was issued after the initial determination of total permanent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church
...an agency action is "an abuse of the discretion delegated to the agency by statute." Id. § 63-46b-16(4)(h)(i); see also Ameritemps, Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2005 UT App 491, ¶ 8, 128 P.3d 31 (finding that an abuse of discretion standard should be used "when an agency has discretion to apply it......
-
State ex rel. K.F.
...internal quotation marks omitted). 11. Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-201(1)(b) (Supp. 2008). 12. 2004 UT 72, 99 P.3d 801. 13. Ameritemps, Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2005 UT App 491, ¶ 10, 128 P.3d 14. Brimhall v. Mecham, 27 Utah 2d 222, 494 P.2d 525, 526 (1972). 15. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-304(4)(c) (2......
-
Fogleman v. Labor Comm'n
..."[I]n workers' compensation claims, the law existing at the time of the injury applies in relation to that injury." Ameritemps, Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2005 UT App 491, ¶ 1 n. 1, 128 P.3d 31 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although Utah Code section 34A–2–413 has been amended......
-
Heber Light & Power Co. v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm'n
...order was final because “the [Board] reached the end of its decision making process on the issue of permanent total disability.” 2005 UT App 491, ¶ 20, 128 P.3d 31, aff'd, 2007 UT 8, 152 P.3d 298 (internal quotation marks omitted)(alteration in original). Furthermore, the Board's order cont......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...Carter v. Labor Comm'n Appeals Bd., 2006 UT App 477, ¶ 12, 153 P.3d 763; Ameritemps, Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2005 UT App 491, ¶ 27, 128 P.3d 31 (determining that petitioner's "selective recitation of the facts" did not meet the marshaling requirement), aff'd, 133 P.3d 437 (Utah 2006); Save Ou......