Massengale v. Labor Comm'n

462 P.3d 417

Steve MASSENGALE, Petitioner,

v.LABOR COMMISSION and Alliant Techsystems Inc., Respondents.

No. 20190249-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed March 26, 2020

Richard R. Burke, Sandy, Attorney for Petitioner

Jaceson R. Maughan and Christopher C. Hill, Attorneys for Respondent Labor Commission

Bret A. Gardner and Kristy L. Bertelsen, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Respondent Alliant Techsystems Inc.

Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan M. Harris and Diana Hagen concurred.

Opinion

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 Steve Massengale has petitioned this court for review of the Labor Commission’s order dismissing his claim for permanent total disability benefits as untimely. We decline to disturb the Labor Commission’s order.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Massengale suffered a work-related back injury on June 28, 2002, while working for Alliant Techsystems Inc. (Alliant), and received workers’ compensation benefits, including compensation for two surgeries. Over the years, Massengale’s condition worsened, and on June 26, 2014, he filed an application for hearing on a request for surgery and a claim for permanent total disability benefits. Alliant asked the administrative law judge (ALJ) to dismiss Massengale’s claim for permanent total disability benefits because that claim could not be assessed until he became medically stable after the surgery. Thereafter, Massengale amended his application for hearing to address only the surgery claim and a request for add-on attorney fees. A short time later, Massengale voluntarily withdrew his claim for permanent total disability benefits.

¶3 On July 8, 2016, more than two years after he filed his initial application for hearing and more than fourteen years after his workplace injury, Massengale filed another application for hearing to adjudicate his permanent total disability claim. An ALJ dismissed this claim because it was not filed prior to the expiration of the twelve-year statute of repose applicable to disability claims in workers’ compensation cases. Massengale appealed the ALJ’s determination, and the Labor Commission affirmed the ALJ’s order, explaining that Massengale’s withdrawal of his permanent total disability claim demonstrated that he was unable to meet his burden to prove entitlement to permanent disability benefits within the twelve-year statutory period. Massengale now requests that we review the Labor Commission’s decision.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4 Massengale asserts that the Labor Commission misinterpreted the relevant statute and that he should therefore have been permitted to pursue his permanent total disability claim. The Labor Commission’s "interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review for correctness." Miller v. Utah Dep’t of Transp. , 2012 UT 54, ¶ 23, 285 P.3d 1208 (quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

¶5 Utah law provides that a worker’s claim for either temporary or permanent disability benefits is barred unless the employee

(i) files an application for hearing with the Division of Adjudication no later than six years from the date of the accident; and

(ii) by no later than 12 years from the date of the accident, is able to meet the employee’s burden of proving that the employee is due the compensation claimed under this chapter.

Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-417(2)(a) (LexisNexis 2019). The statute further provides, in subsection (2)(c), that the Labor Commission "may enter an order awarding or denying an employee’s claim for compensation under this chapter within a reasonable time period beyond 12 years from the date of the accident, if" the employee has complied with the requirements of subsection (2)(a) above and "is actively adjudicating issues of compensability before the commission" "12 years from the date of the accident." Id. § 34A-2-417(2)(c).

¶6 Massengale asserts that he met the requirements for his claim to be considered within a reasonable time beyond twelve years and that his disability claim was therefore timely under subsection (2)(c). But to qualify for consideration under subsection (2)(c), a claimant must first show that he or she has complied with subsection (2)(a). Id. § 34A-2-417(2)(c)(i). Alliant maintains that Massengale’s voluntary withdrawal of his 2014 application for permanent total disability benefits precludes him from demonstrating that he was "able to meet [his] burden of proving that [he] is due the compensation claimed" by the twelve-year mark, as required by subsection (2)(a). See id. § 34A-2-417(2)(a)(ii).¹

¶7 Subsection (2)(a) is a statute of repose.² Waite v. Utah Labor Comm’n , 2017 UT 86, ¶ 17, 416 P.3d 635. This means that, unlike a statute of limitations, the twelve-year limit can cut off a claimant’s right to benefits even if the circumstances giving rise to the claim have not yet occurred. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14. The statute of repose at issue in this case—subsection (2)(a)—bars a claim if the employee is unable to meet his or her "burden of proving that the employee is due the compensation claimed under this chapter" "by no later than 12 years from the date of the accident." Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-417(2)(a). In the context of permanent total disability claims, this burden typically includes showing that the claimant has reached medical stability or maximum medical improvement (MMI). See Waite , 2017 UT 86, ¶ 14, 416 P.3d 635 ; Macy’s Southtowne Center v. Labor Comm’n , 2019 UT App 148, ¶ 20, 449 P.3d 998. Medical stability "means that the period of healing has ended and the condition of the claimant will not materially improve." Booms v. Rapp Constr. Co. , 720 P.2d 1363, 1366 (Utah 1986). Only "once healing has ended[ can] the permanent nature of the claimant’s disability ... be assessed and benefits awarded accordingly." Macy’s Southtowne , 2019 UT App 148, ¶ 20, 449 P.3d 998 (quotation simplified). Thus, if a claimant has not yet reached medical stability by twelve years following the accident, the statute of repose "can cut off a claimant’s right to assert a claim." See Waite , 2017 UT 86, ¶ 14, 416 P.3d 635.

¶8 Because Massengale was pursuing a claim for surgery alongside his permanent disability claim, he was not in a position, at the twelve-year mark, to prove his entitlement to permanent disability benefits. Even if he could have been considered medically stable in the absence of surgery,³ his continued pursuit of surgical options to improve his condition at the time of filing his application for hearing precluded any finding that he had reached MMI because there was no way of knowing how the surgery would affect his impairment until after he healed from surgery. Without his having reached MMI, Massengale’s permanent total disability claim was not ripe for adjudication within the twelve-year statutory period.

¶9 Massengale’s inability to prove his claim for permanent disability benefits is effectively demonstrated, as the Labor Commission observed, by his decision to voluntarily withdraw his application for hearing with respect to that claim. If he "had been able to prove entitlement within the 12-year period, no withdrawal would have been necessary." Indeed, having been approved for the surgery to be paid by his employer—a surgery he requested—Massengale could not continue to pursue his permanent total disability claim until after the surgery was complete and he had recovered from it. Because Massengale could not show that he had reached MMI by the...