Helf v. Industrial Com'n of Utah

• Decision Date: 17 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 940433-CA,940433-CA
• Citation: 901 P.2d 1024
• Parties: Lavell HELF, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH, and Yellow Freight System, Inc., Respondents.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 1024

901 P.2d 1024

Lavell HELF, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH, and Yellow Freight System Inc., Respondents.

No. 940433-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Aug. 17, 1995.

Hans M. Scheffler, Salt Lake City, for petitioner.

David M. McConkie, Stuart F. Weed, Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, for respondents.

Before ORME, BENCH and BILLINGS, JJ.

BENCH, Judge:

Petitioner Helf asks this court to reverse the Industrial Commission's order denying him compensation for a fall sustained when Helf experienced a syncopal episode. We affirm.

FACTS

Helf has a heart condition and a history of syncope. ¹ On September 9, 1992, Helf was at the Gates Rubber Company picking up a shipment of freight for his employer, Yellow Freight System, Inc. (Yellow Freight). To connect the loading dock with his truck trailer, Helf pulled a ring to release a spring-activated dock plate. Helf then stood on the dock plate which was moved into position by Helf's body weight. The height of the trailer was two to four inches higher than the loading dock. While Helf was still standing on the plate, he experienced a syncopal episode. Unconscious, Helf fell backwards onto the flat concrete loading dock, and sustained serious head injuries.

Helf petitioned for workers' compensation. After an administrative law judge denied Helf's application for benefits, Helf asked the Industrial Commission to review his application and the administrative law judge's order. The Industrial Commission upheld the denial of benefits, and Helf filed with this court his petition for writ of review.

ANALYSIS

Helf contends that the Industrial Commission erred in holding that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. See Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-45 (1994). ² "[D]eference to an agency's statutory construction should be given only 'when there is a grant of discretion to the agency concerning the language in question, either expressly made in the statute or implied In Allen v. Industrial Commission, 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986), the supreme court enunciated the test for claims involving preexisting conditions. The supreme court declared:

                from the statutory language.' "  Cross v. Board of Review of Indus. Comm'n, 824 P.2d 1202, 1204 (Utah App.1992) (quoting Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Auditing Div. of Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 589 (Utah 1991)).  Section 35-1-45 "does not expressly or impliedly grant discretion to the Industrial Commission in construing the specific language of the statute."  Cross, 824 P.2d at 1204.   Therefore, we review the Commission's interpretation of section 35-1-45 for correctness.  Id
                

[t]he language "arising out of or in the course of his employment" found in U.C.A., 1953, § 35-1-45 (Supp.1986), was apparently intended to ensure that compensation is only awarded where there is a sufficient causal connection between the disability and the working conditions. The causation requirement makes it necessary to distinguish those injuries which (a) coincidentally occur at work because a preexisting condition results in symptoms which appear during work hours without any enhancement from the workplace, and (b) those injuries which occur because some condition or exertion required by the employment increases the risk of injury which the worker normally faces in his everyday life. (Citation omitted.) Only the latter type of injury is compensable under ... [section] 35-1-45.

Allen, 729 P.2d at 24-25. The supreme court then adopted a two-part causation test that requires both medical and legal causation before compensation can be awarded. Id. at 25; see also Workers' Compensation Fund v. Industrial Comm'n, 761 P.2d 572, 574 (Utah App.1988) (requiring that "claimant establish both legal and medical causation" to show that injury arose from employment). To meet the medical causation requirement, Helf "must show by evidence, opinion, or otherwise that the stress, strain, or exertion required by his ... occupation led to the resulting injury or disability." Allen, 729 P.2d at 27. "To meet the legal causation requirement, a claimant with a preexisting condition must show that the employment contributed something substantial to increase the risk he already faced in everyday life because of his condition." Id. at 25. In other words, Helf must show both legal and medical causation; otherwise, his claim that his injury arose from his employment will fail.

Medical Causation

We first analyze Helf's claim under the medical causation prong of the Allen test. Helf contends that the Industrial Commission erred in not finding that his employment activities medically caused his injury. "The purpose of the medical cause test is to ensure that there is a medically demonstrable causal link between the work-related exertions and the unexpected injuries that resulted from those strains." Allen, 729 P.2d at 27. Helf is responsible for showing by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury was related to his employment activities. Zupon v. Industrial Comm'n, 860 P.2d 960, 963 (Utah App.1993). Medical causation is an issue of fact for which "we review the Commission's findings under the substantial evidence standard." Chase v. Industrial Comm'n, 872 P.2d 475, 479 (Utah App.1994). We will uphold the Commission's findings when they are supported by "substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(g) (1994). Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Chase, 872 P.2d at 479 (citation omitted). When applying the legal framework that the legislature and courts have provided the Commission, " 'we will not disturb the Board's application of its factual findings to the law unless its determination exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.' " Cross, 824 P.2d at 1204 (quoting Pro-Benefit Staffing, Inc. v. Board of Review, 775 P.2d 439, 442 (Utah App.1989)).

Helf presented the opinions of several medical care professionals, including physicians, to support his claim. The record shows some inconsistent medical opinions by After Helf's claim was rejected at the initial hearing before the administrative law judge, Dr. Null and Dr. Freedman then wrote letters that expressed opinions inconsistent with their pronouncements before the initial hearing and contrary to their conclusions from the electrophysiological stress tests. In addition, Dr. Heilbrun concluded that "[i]t is my opinion that this patient sustained a head injury while performing his duties at work. On this basis alone the injury must be considered work related." ³

these same experts. Several doctors opined in letters that the...