JP's Landscaping v. Labor Comm'n

• Decision Date: 30 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. 20150898-CA,20150898-CA
• Citation: 397 P.3d 728
• Parties: JP'S LANDSCAPING and Auto Owners Insurance, Petitioners, v. LABOR COMMISSION and Alberto Mondragon, Respondents.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

397 P.3d 728

JP'S LANDSCAPING and Auto Owners Insurance, Petitioners,

v.LABOR COMMISSION and Alberto Mondragon, Respondents.

No. 20150898-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed March 30, 2017

Mark R. Sumsion and Cody G. Kesler, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Petitioners.

Jaceson R. Maughan and William Barlow, Attorneys for Respondent Labor Commission

Judge Stephen L. Roth authored this Opinion, in which Judges J. Frederic Voros Jr. and David N. Mortensen concurred.

ROTH, Judge:

¶1 JP's Landscaping (JPL) requests review of the Labor Commission's award for workers' compensation benefits arising out of an industrial accident that occurred in May 2012 involving one of JPL's employees. We decline to disturb the Commission's decision.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On May 22, 2012, the first day of his employment, JPL employee Alberto Mondragon suffered an injury. The accident occurred as Mondragon, "almost running," pushed a wheelbarrow full of gravel over uneven ground. Mondragon slipped, and as he did, the wheelbarrow "tipped over." Mondragon claimed that, as the wheelbarrow tipped, its "handles [took] hold of him in different directions," which caused "pressure on his [right] knee." At that point, Mondragon claims "he felt a sudden pop in the knee." Although he did not "fall to the ground" and was instead "able to catch himself," Mondragon reported that the inside area of his right knee—both front and back—began to immediately swell.

¶3 Mondragon reported the incident to his supervisor when she arrived at the site, and, within three hours of the incident, he reported to a WorkMed clinic. The physician who examined him, Dr. Britt, noted Mondragon's explanation that the injury involved a wheelbarrow full of gravel that tilted and caused pressure on Mondragon's right knee and that there was a "sudden pop" in that knee. Dr. Britt then noted that there was "no visible bruising" but that there "may be slight swelling above the joint line medially" and that Mondragon had "diffuse tenderness ... around the medial joint line area." He also noted that, although Mondragon was able to extend and flex the knee, "[a]ny attempts at rotation and extension cause[d] [Mondragon] to have marked pain." Dr. Britt diagnosed Mondragon with a right knee sprain

and stated that the sprain was the "result of the industrial injury/exposure described." He prescribed a knee support and pain medication. He also referred Mondragon to an orthopedic specialist for further evaluation and released him to light-duty work. Because JPL did not have light-duty work available, it terminated Mondragon's employment. Mondragon was out of work until July 15, 2012, when he began working for another employer.

¶4 In August 2012, Mondragon requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (the ALJ) to determine his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits related to the accident. Mondragon represented himself at the hearing. When asked to explain how the accident occurred, he explained that he was "almost running" while pushing a wheelbarrow full of gravel and that the wheelbarrow tipped to the side, catching his knee between the two handles. He testified that he "felt [his] knee popping and twisting to the side" or that "maybe only nerves got twisted," and that there was immediate swelling around his right knee. He also testified that Dr. Britt later informed him that he had suffered a "severe sprain." On cross-examination, however, JPL demonstrated that the mechanism of injury Mondragon had described—that his right knee became caught between the two handles of the wheelbarrow—was physically impossible. Specifically, counsel for JPL asked Mondragon to demonstrate how his accident had occurred using a comparable wheelbarrow that JPL produced at the hearing. It became obvious that Mondragon's knee could not have been caught between the two handles, because as the wheelbarrow tipped, the left handle would have been significantly higher than his right knee and could not have caught his right knee or struck it. Mondragon stated, however, that even if he did not know "how [the wheelbarrow] caught [his knee]," his right knee still "got caught ... and the wheelbarrow tipped over to the side" and that the right handle "was the one that hit [him]," which was when he felt his "[right] knee kind of popping towards the outside."

¶5 In her interim findings of fact and conclusions of law issued after the hearing, the ALJ concluded that although "[t]he exact mechanism of injury is unclear" and Mondragon mistakenly "believed that one of the handles of the wheel barrow hit his right knee," Mondragon had nevertheless suffered an injury that "arose out of an industrial accident." The ALJ also concluded that there were conflicting opinions regarding the medical cause of Mondragon's continuing knee problems, with Mondragon's treating physicians stating that the accident caused Mondragon's injury and the need for further treatment, while an independent medical examiner that JPL hired had concluded that, at most, the accident aggravated preexisting knee conditions. The ALJ therefore referred the case to a medical panel to consider the question of medical causation. In the charging letter, the ALJ asked the panel to answer whether there was "a medically demonstrable causal connection between [Mondragon's] medical problem and the industrial accident as described in [the] Interim Order"; to "identify the medical care necessary to treat [Mondragon's] problems caused by the industrial accident"; and to "identify any and all future medical care ... that will be necessary in treating [Mondragon's] problems caused by the industrial accident."

¶6 The ALJ found in her interim order that Mondragon could not have been injured by "one of the handles of the wheel barrow hit[ting] his right knee" and advised the medical panel in her charging letter that the panel was "bound by" the findings and conclusions in the interim order. In its report, the medical panel characterized Mondragon's injury as a "twisting type injury" and described the accident as occurring when the wheelbarrow's "handle caught [Mondragon's] right leg" as it tipped over and Mondragon "twisted to free himself from the flipped wheel barrow." On this basis, the medical panel concluded that there was a "causal connection between the injury suffered in 2012 and the ongoing knee problem." The panel had examined Mondragon and reviewed his medical history and determined that the type of pain he experienced—"mostly medial side pain" along with "recurrent swelling" in the joint—was consistent with meniscal knee injuries

. It also noted that, although Mondragon had suffered a number of knee injuries in the past, "all previous injuries to the right knee were diagnosed contusions" that "improved in less than four months" with "no residual symptoms." Further, although arthritis could have been a cause of similar symptoms, the panel noted that radiographic images of the knee "show[ed] healthy joint weight bearing surfaces, with minimal arthritic changes consistent with age and heavy use" and opined that "the excellent joint space seen on [Mondragon's] radiographs" would weigh against a conclusion that arthritis was the cause. The medical panel concluded that "the twisting type injury with medial pain, the prolonged nature of the medial joint line pain and swelling, the findings on physical examination of medial pain, ... all suggest an injury to the meniscus" from the accident, which "seldom heal[s] with time." As a consequence, the panel opined that Mondragon required further medical care to treat his knee injury, including an operation to repair the meniscal tear, followup physical therapy and medication, and other associated medical care.

¶7 JPL objected to the medical panel report, arguing that the case should have been dismissed before referral to the panel because Mondragon "did not meet his burden of proving that an accident occurred." JPL also argued that the panel's report should not be admitted in any event, because the medical panel "relied upon a mechanism of injury which did not occur" when it described the accident as involving the wheelbarrow's "handle" catching Mondragon's right leg as the wheelbarrow tipped over. The ALJ responded to JPL's contentions in her findings of fact and conclusions of law, reiterating and further explaining her conclusion that Mondragon had suffered an industrial accident on the day in question. In particular, the ALJ stated that she found Mondragon's "testimony regarding his work day to be believable and truthful." Although Mondragon's "description [of the accident] is flawed in the details," she said, what "remained quite clear was that [Mondragon] did use his legs and body to try and keep control of the wheel barrow" and that "when the heavy load tipped" Mondragon was "jerked and tousled." She further explained that even though Mondragon might have had a "flawed recollection of the details ... the case can be made that an accident took place from the facts known before and after the moment of injury," which included "the nature of the heavy work being done, the pace of the work, the loss of control over the wheel barrow[,] and the resultant pain and injury." The ALJ concluded that that evidence "proved that an industrial accident of substantial exertion took place." In addition, the ALJ rejected JPL's contention that the medical panel had relied on facts inconsistent with the "in court demonstration done with the wheel barrow," in other words, that the panel had relied on Mondragon's discredited original description of the mechanism of injury. She therefore declined to hold a hearing on JPL's objection to the medical panel report and admitted it. The ALJ then ordered JPL to pay Mondragon's "past and future medical bills related to the necessary care of ... Mondragon's right knee injury

consistent with the medical panel's opinion."

¶8 JPL sought review of the ALJ's decision with the Commission. The Commission concluded, as...