JBS Carriers v. Labor Comm'n
| Decision Date | 15 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20200226-CA,20200226-CA |
| Citation | 489 P.3d 221 |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JBS CARRIERS and American Zurich Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. LABOR COMMISSION and David Hickey, Respondents. |
Brad J. Miller and Rachel M. Konishi, Attorneys for Petitioners
Gary E. Atkin, Salt Lake City, and Kenneth E. Atkin, Attorneys for Respondent David Hickey
Opinion
¶1 While on a long-haul trip as a truck driver for JBS Carriers (JBS), David Hickey developed a blood clot
in his left leg, parts of which eventually migrated to his lungs. He later sought, and was awarded, workers’ compensation benefits for pulmonary and left leg problems associated with the blood clot. JBS and its insurer seek judicial review of that award, contending that Hickey's employment was not the legal cause of his injuries, and that the Utah Labor Commission (the Commission) improperly determined otherwise. We agree with JBS, and therefore we set aside the Commission's order and remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings.
¶2 One evening in August 2016, Hickey began a multi-day trip driving a commercial truck from Utah to California for JBS, his employer since 2013. Hickey's truck was outfitted with an automatic transmission, meaning that Hickey could operate the vehicle without using his left foot to depress a clutch. The truck also came equipped with a sleeper cab, which Hickey could use for rest breaks. On the first evening of the trip, Hickey drove for thirty-seven minutes before stopping for fuel, then drove for another two hours before stopping to sleep in his cab. On the second day of the trip, Hickey drove for two short stretches in the morning, took an eight-hour rest in his sleeper cab, and then drove for just over seven hours without interruption, arriving at his first destination after midnight on the third day of the trip. At this destination, Hickey's truck was unloaded, and he rested there for about eighteen hours before driving another two hours to a second destination.
¶3 By the end of the third day of the trip, Hickey started feeling "dehydrated and not well," and began experiencing shortness of breath, which increased with movement, and "swelling in his left leg." After arriving at his second destination, Hickey went to a local hospital where he was diagnosed with "acute DVT of the lower left extremity." DVT stands for "deep vein thrombosis
," which is a medical condition caused by the development of a blood clot in a vein deep inside the body. See Deep Vein Thrombosis , WebMD, https://www.webmd.com/dvt/what-is-dvt-and-what-causes-it [https://perma.cc/4PKC-3KKU]. In Hickey's case, parts of the blood clot that had originally formed in a vein in his left leg had broken off and migrated into the blood vessels in his lungs, causing "severe bilateral pulmonary emboli." Pulmonary embolism occurs when a blood clot "that travel[s] to the lung from deep veins in the legs" causes a blockage in one of the lungs’ pulmonary arteries. See Pulmonary embolism , Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseasesconditions/pulmonary-embolism /symptoms-causes/syc-2035464 7 [https://perma.cc/92KV-PBJV]. DVT coupled with pulmonary embolism is a life-threatening condition, and doctors therefore admitted Hickey to the hospital for treatment, where he remained for three days. Upon discharge, hospital physicians gave Hickey anticoagulants, referred him to his primary medical doctor, and counseled him to lose weight; at the time, he weighed over 340 pounds and had a body mass index of 55, and was thus considered medically "super obese." Hickey had also developed DVT on another occasion some twenty-five years earlier; on that occasion, the DVT occurred after a surgical procedure.
¶4 After being discharged from the California hospital, Hickey was not cleared to return to commercial truck driving for three months. In the interim, Hickey applied for temporary total and permanent partial workers’ compensation benefits. In his application, Hickey claimed that he sustained an industrial injury—the DVT and resulting embolism
(the Injury)—"[d]ue to long periods of sitting in a truck" in August 2016. He did not claim to have sustained the Injury from repetitive trauma. JBS responded by asserting that there existed no causal link—either medical or legal—between Hickey's employment and the Injury, and contended that the Injury "constitute[d] nothing more than the continuing manifestation of a pre-existing condition." After two doctors assessed Hickey and gave conflicting opinions about whether Hickey suffered from a preexisting condition that contributed to the Injury, an administrative law judge (ALJ) referred the matter to a medical panel.
¶5 The doctors on the panel reviewed the relevant medical records, as well as certain facts to which Hickey and JBS had stipulated, and concluded that the "primary factor" that led to the Injury was Hickey's "super obesity
." The panel acknowledged that Hickey's "work as a commercial truck driver ... did marginally worsen" his DVT and pulmonary embolism, but opined that Hickey's "super obesity made him 6-10 times more likely to develop a blood clot." The panel concluded by stating that it did "not believe there [was] a 1:1 contribution" to the Injury from his super obesity and from his long-haul journey, because obesity is a more significant DVT risk factor than commercial truck driving.
¶6 Relying on the medical panel's report, which he found "thorough and well-reasoned," the ALJ denied Hickey's claim for benefits. In so doing, the ALJ first determined that Hickey suffered from a preexisting condition—super obesity—and that this condition "contributed to the development of [Hickey's] blood clots
." He then concluded, citing Allen v. Industrial Commission , 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986), that Hickey's work-related activities—which the ALJ characterized as "spending long periods of time sitting ... without using his left foot"—did not qualify as the legal cause of the Injury under Utah law, because those activities were "not ... unusual or extraordinary" exertions. See
¶7 Hickey then asked the Commission to review the ALJ's decision. In Hickey's motion for review, he raised two main arguments: (1) that the medical panel was not qualified to render its decision; and (2) that the ALJ erroneously concluded that a preexisting condition contributed to the Injury, and that Hickey should therefore not have been required to meet the Allen standard for legal causation. Notably, Hickey did not make any argument, in the alternative or otherwise, that he could satisfy the Allen standard in the event it applied to his case; specifically, he did not attempt to claim that sitting for long periods of time while driving his truck during the August 2016 trip was an unusual or extraordinary exertion that would satisfy Allen .
¶8 After review, the Commission found it unnecessary to address the threshold question of whether Hickey suffered from a preexisting condition that contributed to the Injury, because it determined, sua sponte, that "even if the more stringent [ Allen ] standard applies to Mr. Hickey's claim, he me[t] such standard in light of the work activity that precipitated [the Injury]." The Commission relied on its own precedent to conclude that the activity of "driving for more than six hours without a break and then driving for almost two and a half hours more later in the same day involves an unusual or extraordinary exertion." The Commission then set aside the ALJ's order, and remanded the matter to the ALJ for additional proceedings.
¶9 On remand, the ALJ issued a second order that reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that Hickey suffered from a preexisting condition that contributed to the Injury, but also concluded—as determined by the Commission—that Hickey could show both legal causation and medical causation. The ALJ therefore awarded Hickey the benefits he requested.
¶10 JBS appealed the ALJ's second decision to the Commission, arguing that the Commission overstepped its bounds by sua sponte evaluating legal causation under the Allen standard, and asserting that Hickey could not meet that standard in any event. The Commission rejected JBS's arguments. With regard to legal causation, the Commission concluded that driving a commercial truck is unlike typical nonemployment activities, such as personal travel or watching television for long periods of time, because commercial truck driving gives the worker "limited opportunity" to move and is "more complex and demanding than operating or traveling in a personal automobile." The Commission therefore affirmed the ALJ's award of benefits to Hickey.
¶11 JBS now seeks judicial review of the Commission's award, and asks us to examine two particular aspects of the Commission's decision, both of which concern legal causation. First, JBS asserts that, by failing to raise the issue in his first motion for review before the Commission, Hickey failed to preserve (or waived his right to seek review of) the question of whether long-haul truck driving constitutes an unusual or extraordinary exertion under Allen v. Industrial Commission , 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986), and asserts that the Commission overstepped its bounds by addressing the issue sua sponte. Second, JBS challenges the merits of the Commission's legal causation determination, asserting that the Injury was not the result of any unusual or extraordinary workplace exertion.
¶12 We need not tackle the first issue, however, because we ultimately agree with JBS on the merits of the legal causation question. Accordingly, in this case we exercise our prerogative to presume, without deciding, that the Allen issue was preserved and that the Commission did not overstep its bounds by addressing it.2 See State v. Kitches , 2021 UT App 24, ¶ 28, 484 P.3d 415 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JBS Carriers v. Utah Labor Commission
...with JBS that Hickey's work activities were not unusual or extraordinary under Allen . JBS Carriers v. Lab. Comm'n , 2021 UT App 44, ¶ 25, 489 P.3d 221. The court of appeals discounted some of the employment circumstances considered by the Board because they had not been "required" by the e......
- Wright v. Labor Comm'n
-
JBS Carriers v. Utah Labor Comm'n
...with JBS that Hickey's work activities were not unusual or extraordinary under Allen. JBS Carriers v. Lab. Comm'n, 2021 UT App 44, ¶ 25, 489 P.3d 221. court of appeals discounted some of the employment circumstances considered by the Board because they had not been "required" by the employm......
- JBS Carriers v. Hickey