Mayhew v. Lab. Comm'n

552 P.3d 235

2024 UT App 81

Norm C. MAYHEW,¹ Petitioner,

v.LABOR COMMISSION, Darrell W. Anderson Construction Inc., and Workers’ Compensation Fund, Respondents.

No. 20220695-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed May 31, 2024

Original Proceeding in this Court

Michael Gary Belnap, Ogden, Virginius Dabney, St. George, and Stony V. Olsen, Attorneys for Petitioner

Michele L. Halstenrud and Hans Scheffler, Attorneys for Respondents Darrell W. Anderson Construction Inc. and Workers’ Compensation Fund

Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan M. Harris and John D. Luthy concurred.

Opinion

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 More than fifteen years ago, Norm C. Mayhew was injured at work. In 2015, seven years after that accident, Mayhew filed a claim seeking workers’ compensation benefits from his employer. Since filing his industrial accident claim, Mayhew has engaged in extensive efforts before an administrative law judge (the ALJ) and the Labor Commission Appeals Board (the Commission) to demonstrate that he is entitled to medical benefits and disability benefits because the industrial accident rendered him permanently unable to work. Mayhew petitioned for judicial review of the Commission’s dismissal of his claim for permanent total disability benefits after it determined his claim was time-barred and he had obstructed the adjudicative process.

¶2 The relevant statute, section 34A-2-417 of the Utah Code, contains a twelve-year statute of repose under which claims are timely if, at the twelve-year mark from the date of the accident, the claimant "is able to" meet the burden of proving that compensation is due and "[he or she] is actively adjudicating issues of compensability before the commission." Because Mayhew was actively litigating at the twelve-year mark from the accident, the Commission erred by dismissing his claim under the statute of repose. As such, we determine that while Mayhew acted in a manner that was obstructive to the adjudicative process, this behavior occurred in a non-hearing setting, and thus the Commission did not have authority to dismiss Mayhew’s claim as a sanction for the problematic conduct that occurred. We therefore remand Mayhew’s case for further consideration.

BACKGROUND

¶3 In August 2008, Mayhew suffered a workplace accident while employed as a concrete setter for Darrell W. Anderson Construction Inc. (referred to collectively with its insurer, Workers’ Compensation Fund, as Respondents). Mayhew was injured while "using a post driver to drive rebar for temporary fencing" and "he accidentally struck himself in the left foot with the post pounder, in an area beyond the steel toe of his boot." Respondents have paid certain medical benefits in connection with Mayhew’s injury. Specifically, since the accident in 2008, Respondents have paid approximately $20,000 in temporary total disability compensation benefits; approximately $6,000 in temporary partial disability compensation benefits; approximately $7,000 in permanent partial disability compensation benefits; and approximately $50,000 in medical expenses on behalf of Mayhew. Over time, however, the parties have disagreed about which injuries were caused by the accident, the extent of those injuries, the medical treatment necessary for those injuries, and Mayhew’s entitlement to past temporary disability and permanent compensation benefits.

¶4 In March 2015, Mayhew filed his initial application for hearing seeking medical and temporary benefits and permanent total disability compensation benefits. After numerous hearing continuances and delays, in October 2015, Mayhew sent a letter to the ALJ requesting withdrawal of his permanent total disability claim, leave to amend his application to add claims for temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits, and an additional continuance of the hearing scheduled for November 2015. In that letter, he asserted that his "claim for [permanent total disability] benefits [was] unripe because he [was] clearly not MMI."² But, as of December 29, 2015, "no amended application for hearing [had] been received from [Mayhew] as anticipated." The ALJ al lowed Mayhew one extra month to file an amended application and notified him that a hearing would be scheduled based on the current application if nothing further was filed.

¶5 Mayhew filed an amended application in early 2016, which did not include a claim for permanent total disability benefits but instead sought temporary total disability and permanent partial disability benefits; however, this application noted that Mayhew was still "not MMI" and would "receive an impairment rating upon reaching MMI."

¶6 In November 2016, the ALJ held the first hearing on Mayhew’s application to determine whether Mayhew’s injuries were caused by the industrial accident, what treatment was necessary for his injuries, and whether he was entitled to medical benefits and past temporary benefits.

¶7 In April 2017, the ALJ issued interim findings, Ordering that the medical aspects of Mayhew’s claim be referred to a medical panel for further evaluation and that Mayhew obtain and file all radiology films with the ALJ on or before May 19, 2017, or else risk dismissal of his application. After Mayhew refused to participate in the medical panel "for some time" because of an upcoming surgery and did not file the requested diagnostics with the ALJ, the ALJ dismissed Mayhew’s case without prejudice several months later.

¶8 The next day, Mayhew requested that the order of dismissal be set aside. In August 2017, after receiving assurances that Respondents were paying temporary compensation and certain medical expenses, the ALJ denied the request, ordering that Mayhew file another motion to set aside once his health condition stabilized.

¶9 Mayhew asked the ALJ to set aside the dismissal and continue the adjudication in July 2018 after he reached MMI status. Though Respondents had paid medical expenses for and indemnity benefits during Mayhew’s recent surgery, the parties continued to argue about what benefits should be paid as a result of Mayhew’s industrial accident. The ALJ set a formal hearing for February 2019, and the parties requested a continuance two weeks before that hearing to discuss settlement and to complete further discovery because the case had become more complex. The ALJ agreed to the requested continuance and rescheduled the hearing for seven months later but indicated she had little confidence that "more delay [would] help" and stated that she would "grant no other continuances" in the case.

¶10 Mayhew filed an amended application adding several medical conditions to his claim for medical and temporary benefits. In September 2019, a second hearing was held on those claims. The ALJ imposed various deadlines on the parties prior to the case proceeding to a medical panel. Mayhew submitted opinion letters from two doctors who opined that he suffers from complex regional pain syndrome CORPS). Mayhew then filed a number of "arguments regarding medical panel issues," which the ALJ refused to consider on the basis that they were "extremely premature."

¶11 In March 2020, the ALJ issued an amended interim order, again referring the case to a medical panel for further evaluation due to conflicting medical opinions. In response to the amended interim order, Mayhew sent the ALJ an email asserting that certain medical records must be missing from the medical records exhibit. In reply, the ALJ issued an order outlining all medical records the court had received and permitting Mayhew to submit a response by late April 2020 with any proposed amendments to the medical exhibit. The ALJ cautioned that if there were no additional submissions, the medical exhibit would be closed and deemed completed.

¶12 In April 2020, Mayhew submitted a letter to the ALJ and asked her to consider it a motion to revise the medical record summary to fix alleged page-numbering issues and to include the opinion letters from his two doctors. Shortly thereafter, Respondents objected to the motion as untimely. The parties submitted several more motions to the ALJ over the disputed medical records. The ALJ issued a second amended order in June 2020, which partially incorporated the additional medical records and again referred the case to a medical panel for further evaluation.

¶13 While the case proceeded before the medical panel, Mayhew filed a motion requesting that the ALJ reconsider her second amended order, and he alleged that the summary of the medical record presented "a grossly lop-sided view of the medical evidence" that confirmed "a strong and improper bias [of the ALJ] against" Mayhew, going so far as to allege that "the ALJ [was] neglecting her duty as an ALJ" by not including all of Mayhew’s submitted medical evidence. In response, the ALJ issued an order in June 2020 stating that she would not rule on Mayhew’s objections, which "appear[ed] to yet again request modification of the fact findings," "until the time of the issuance of the final order."

¶14 Mayhew then escalated the dispute to the Commission, and in a June 2020 email, he requested interlocutory review of the ALJ’s findings of fact and interim order and her refusal to consider Mayhew’s demands to add his opinion letters to the medical record and factual findings. In his motion for interlocutory review, Mayhew highlighted what he perceived to be all of the ALJ’s "errors, mischaracterizations, failures[,] and actions," including her compilation of "a defective and incomplete medical record" and her appointment of an "unqualified" medical panel chair, among other grievances. Mayhew requested that another ALJ be appointed to handle the case—asserting that the ALJ had "intentionally" made errors or had "a faulty work ethic"—and that the new ALJ should be given specific instructions on how to appoint qualified, unbiased specialists to the medical panel.

¶15 Respondents filed a...