In Auto Owners Insurance, Petitioner settled a third-party claim for $5 million. The claim was brought against third parties involved in a workplace accident that left Petitioner disabled and receiving ongoing workers’ compensation benefits. Auto Owners Insurance Company, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, began paying Petitioner’s medical and wage benefits, but stopped paying ongoing benefits once the third-party settlement had been reached. At that point, $2.1 million had been paid to Petitioner’s attorneys for attorney fees and other expenses associated with the third-party action. Additionally, the insurer paid $1.57 million in medical and indemnity benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Act allows for, and requires, that employers and carriers share in the recovery a Petitioner obtains resulting from third-party settlement.

In Ackley, the claimant challenged the Utah Labor Commission’s (the Labor Commission) denial of her claim for worker’s compensation benefits, contending that the Labor Commission mis-applied the idiopathic fall doctrine in her claim.

In Horning, the claimant argued that the Utah Labor Commission (the Labor Commission) exceeded its discretion in considering a medical panel’s report, which he alleged was tainted by exposure to descriptions of surveillance video that had been excluded from evidence. The exclusion included a stipulation that two pages of medical records that contained a description […]

In C.R. England, Respondents challenged a medical panel’s report arguing that the panel failed to adequately support its recommendation for cognitive behavioral therapy. In support of the recommendation, the medical panel stated its belief that cognitive behavior therapy “may be beneficial” to the claimant. Respondents argued that the use of the word “may” indicated that […]

In Barker, the claimant refused to participate in an IME requested by Respondents unless he could video and audio record the IME. A dispute arose between the parties and an ALJ eventually compelled the claimant to attend the IME without a video recording. The claimant appealed the determination to not allow a video recording of […]