Horning v. Labor Comm’n
Horning v. Labor Comm’n, 2023 UT App 30 (Mortensen, J.)
Horning was injured at work and received full disability benefits for a time. Those benefits later ended when a medical report suggested that his injury no longer impaired him. On appeal, Horning challenges the qualifications of the medical panel, arguing that the Commission should not have considered the medical report. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining:
- The Commission did not abuse its discretion when it considered the medical report because no evidence suggested the panel considered improper evidence, and the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
- The medical panel was qualified, because only one member of the panel needed to “specializ[e] in the treatment of the disease or condition” in accordance with Utah Code § 34A-2-601(1)(c).
- Practice Tip: On appeal, to succeed on a claim that findings and conclusions about causation are not supported by “substantial evidence,” the complaining party must grapple with the evidence supporting the findings and conclusions as well as the evidence that undermines them.