Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church

• Decision Date: 18 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 20050750.,No. 20050745.,20050745.,20050750.
• Citation: 2007 UT 42,164 P.3d 384
• Parties: Enrique MARTINEZ, Respondent, v. MEDIA-PAYMASTER PLUS/CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, and Labor Commission of Utah, Petitioners.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

164 P.3d 384

2007 UT 42

Enrique MARTINEZ, Respondent, v. MEDIA-PAYMASTER PLUS/CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, and Labor Commission of Utah, Petitioners.

No. 20050745.

No. 20050750.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 18, 2007.

Richard R. Burke, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Merrill F. Nelson, Christian S. Collins, Salt Lake City, for Media-Paymaster Plus.

Alan L. Hennebold, Salt Lake City, for Labor Commission.

Floyd W. Holm, Murray, for amicus Workers' Compensation Fund of Utah.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

PARRISH, Justice.

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Enrique Martinez petitioned the Utah Labor Commission (the "Commission") for an award of permanent total disability compensation against his former employer, Media-Paymaster Plus ("Media"). After an administrative law judge (the "ALJ") denied his claim and the Commission confirmed the decision, Martinez sought a writ of review from the Utah Court of Appeals. The court of appeals reversed the Commission's order and remanded the matter to the Commission to award Martinez benefits. We granted certiorari to determine (1) whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard of review, and (2) whether the employee or the employer bears the burden of proof when an employee seeks compensation under Utah Code section 34A-2-413(1)(c).

¶ 2 Regarding the first issue, the court of appeals reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard the Commission's determination that Martinez could perform the "essential functions" of his prior employment, as well as its determination that other work was "reasonably available" to him. Because we conclude that the court of appeals should have reviewed these determinations under a substantial evidence standard, we remand them to the court of appeals for consideration under the appropriate standard of review. With regard to the second issue, we conclude that an employee seeking an award of permanent total disability bears the burden of proving each of the four elements specified under section 34A-2-413(1)(c).

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On October 28, 1996, while performing temporary work as a movie extra for Media, Martinez slipped and fell on a wet floor, suffering injury to his cervical spine and right shoulder. Martinez had retired from state employment in 1995 after working for 28 years as a maintenance specialist. At the time of the accident, he was working part-time at a McDonald's restaurant. He continued to work there until December 1996. In September 1997, Martinez tried to return to work at Media, but no work was available. At that time, Martinez also tried to return to light-duty work at McDonald's but was told no such work was available. Martinez has not worked since leaving McDonald's in December 1996.

¶ 4 On July 31, 2000, Martinez filed an action with the Commission to compel Media to pay him permanent total disability compensation for his injuries. Section 34A-2-413 of the Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act") governs permanent total disability determinations. The relevant portions of the Act are as follows:

(b) To establish entitlement to permanent total disability compensation, the employee has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of evidence that:

(i) the employee sustained a significant impairment .. . as a result of the industrial accident or occupational disease that gives rise to the permanent total disability entitlement;

(ii) the employee is permanently totally disabled; and

(iii) the industrial accident or occupational disease was the direct cause of the employee's permanent total disability.

(c) To find an employee permanently totally disabled, the commission shall conclude that:

(i) the employee is not gainfully employed (ii) the employee has an impairment ... that limit[s] the employee's ability to do basic work activities;

(iii) the industrial or occupationally caused impairment . . . prevent[s] the employee from performing the essential functions of the work activities for which the employee has been qualified until the time of the industrial accident or occupational disease that is the basis for the employee's permanent total disability claim; and

(iv) the employee cannot perform other work reasonably available, taking into consideration the employee's:

(A) age;

(B) education;

(C) past work experience;

(D) medical capacity; and

(E) residual functional capacity.

Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-413(1)(b)-(c) (2005) (amended 2006).

¶ 5 The ALJ denied Martinez's claim, finding that Martinez "failed to prove that he cannot perform the essential functions of work he was qualified to perform, and ... failed to prove that there is no other work reasonably available." Following the denial of his claim by the ALJ, Martinez appealed to the Commission. The Commission confirmed the ALJ's decision that Martinez had failed to satisfy two of the elements required to establish permanent total disability under section 34A-2-413. First, using Martinez's work at McDonald's as a benchmark, the Commission concluded that Martinez had failed to show that his impairments prevented him from performing the essential functions of his position at McDonald's. Second, the Commission concluded that Martinez had failed to prove that he was unable to perform other reasonably available work.

¶ 6 The court of appeals reversed the Commission's order, holding that (1) the Commission abused its discretion in concluding that Martinez was capable of performing his prior job and other reasonably available work, and (2) the Commission incorrectly allocated the burden of proof. Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus, 2005 UT App 308, ¶¶ 9, 13, 16, 117 P.3d 1074.

¶ 7 In reversing the Commission on the first issue, the court of appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion the Commission's application of its findings of fact to the law. The court held that the Commission had abused its discretion in concluding that Martinez could perform the essential functions of a fast-food worker, id. ¶¶ 10-13, and in concluding that other work was reasonably available to Martinez, id. ¶¶ 14-15.

¶ 8 In reversing the Commission on the second issue, the court of appeals focused on the differences in language between Utah Code section 34A-2-413(1)(c) ("subsection (c)") and Utah Code section 34A-2-413(1)(b) ("subsection (b)").¹ Subsection (b) delineates three elements for which an "employee has the burden of proof" in order to establish entitlement to benefits for permanent total disability. Subsection (c) sets out four additional items that the "Commission shall conclude" before finding an employee permanently totally disabled. After determining that the statute was ambiguous with respect to which party bears the burden of proof under subsection (c), the court analyzed punctuation rules, canons of statutory construction, and public policy. It then determined that the employer bore the burden of proof under subsection (c). Id. ¶¶ 7-9.

¶ 9 We granted certiorari on two issues: (1) whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard in reviewing the Commission's order, and (2) whether the employee or the employer bears the burden of proof under Utah Code section 34A-2-413(1)(c).

ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Regarding the first issue, we conclude that the court of appeals should have reviewed the Commission's findings that Martinez could perform the essential functions of his prior employment and that other work was reasonably available to him under a substantial evidence standard but, in fact, improperly reweighed the Commission's factual determinations under the guise of reviewing the application of facts to law. Because the court of appeals should have considered these issues under a substantial evidence standard, we reverse and remand for consideration under the appropriate standard of review.

¶ 11 We similarly reverse the court of appeals' holding on the second issue. As a threshold matter, we find that the court of appeals correctly reviewed the Commission's statutory interpretation of Utah Code section 34A-2-413(1)(c) for correctness. We find, however, that the employee bears the burden of proof under section 34A-2-413(1)(c) because, when subsections (b) and (c) are read in context, it is clear that subsection (c) delineates the elements an employee must prove to meet his subsection (b)(ii) burden of establishing that he is permanently totally disabled.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 12 We first consider Martinez's argument that the Commission's factual findings are inadequate as a matter of law. We then turn to Media's contention that the court of appeals erred by reviewing the Commission's factual findings despite Martinez's failure to marshal the evidence. Having disposed of these two threshold matters, we then consider the appropriate standard of review.

A. The Commission's Factual Findings Are Not Inadequate as a Matter of Law

¶ 13 Martinez argues that if the essential functions of his prior work and the reasonable availability of other work are factual issues, the Commission's factual findings on these issues are so inadequate as to require their reversal as a matter of law. In essence, Martinez argues that there is no "logical and legal basis for the [Commission's] ultimate conclusions," see Milne Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 720 P.2d 1373, 1378 (Utah 1986), and that consequently, this court has no principled basis on which to sustain its factual findings, see Mountain States Legal Found. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 636 P.2d 1047, 1051-52 (Utah 1981). In such an instance, marshaling is not required because "the findings are so inadequate that they cannot be meaningfully challenged as factual determinations." Woodward v. Fazzio, 823 P.2d 474, 477 (Utah Ct.App.1991).

¶ 14 Martinez contends that it was irrational for the Commission to conclude that other work was reasonably available in the face of testimony by a vocational expert that Martinez could not perform any currently available jobs without some task modification. Martinez further...