This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A carpenter suffered an accidental injury on May 11, 1987, when scaffolding collapsed, striking him on the neck, shoulders, and back. The injury resulted in a cervical strain with mild cervical root compression. The employer initially paid temporary total disability benefits but terminated them on December 14, 1987, alleging the worker failed to follow medical advice (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Division, Prehearing Officer: Recommended reinstatement of benefits retroactive to December 14, 1987, and partial attorney fees. The claimant accepted, but the employer rejected the recommendation (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer (Appellant): Argued that the claimant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits because he could perform other work, failed to follow prescribed medical treatment, and that the termination of benefits was justified. Additionally, it contested the award of attorney fees, claiming no bad faith in terminating benefits and that the compensation order was overbroad (paras 2, 7, 10, 17, 42).
- Claimant (Appellee): Asserted entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, arguing that the employer's termination of benefits was in bad faith, causing economic loss. The claimant also supported the award of attorney fees and opposed the employer's claim of overbroadness in the compensation order (paras 2, 17, 42).
Legal Issues
- Was the claimant entitled to temporary total disability benefits under the Interim Act?
- Did the claimant's alleged failure to follow prescribed medical treatment justify the termination of benefits?
- Did the employer act in bad faith in terminating the claimant's benefits, warranting an award of attorney fees?
- Was the compensation order overbroad in its scope?
Disposition
- The award of temporary total disability benefits was affirmed.
- The award of attorney fees was reversed.
- The compensation order was upheld as not overbroad.
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Minzner and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Temporary Total Disability Benefits:
The court held that under the Interim Act, "temporary total disability" refers to the inability to perform the duties of the job held at the time of injury, not other potential jobs. The hearing officer's finding that the claimant could not perform his duties as a carpenter was supported by substantial evidence. The employer's argument conflating temporary total disability with permanent disability standards was rejected (paras 6-9).
Failure to Follow Medical Treatment:
The court found that the claimant's refusal to continue physical therapy and undergo a myelogram was not arbitrary or unreasonable. Medical evidence indicated that physical therapy was not significantly beneficial, and the employer failed to prove that the claimant's refusal delayed recovery. The hearing officer's findings on this issue were upheld (paras 10-16).
Bad Faith and Attorney Fees:
The court reversed the award of attorney fees, finding no substantial evidence of bad faith. The employer's termination of benefits, while potentially procedurally flawed, did not rise to the level of "fraud, malice, oppression, or willful, wanton, or reckless disregard" required under Section 52-1-54(C). The employer's reliance on an incorrect statutory provision and failure to comply with procedural rules did not constitute bad faith (paras 17-29, 37).
Overbroadness of Compensation Order:
The court rejected the employer's claim that the compensation order was overbroad. It held that the order must be read in the context of statutory limits, which cap benefits at 600 weeks. The hearing officer's order was not inconsistent with this statutory framework (paras 42-43).
Procedural Compliance with Rules:
The court found that the employer substantially complied with Rule II(A)(3)(b) of the Workers' Compensation Division Rules and Regulations, as the claimant was represented by counsel and did not require additional instructions on filing a claim. This technical violation did not amount to bad faith (paras 30-36).
Penalties Provision:
The court held that the employer's rejection of the prehearing officer's recommended resolution was not unreasonable or in bad faith. Therefore, the penalties provision of the Workers' Compensation Division Rules and Regulations did not justify the award of attorney fees (para 41).
The matter was remanded to the Workers' Compensation Division for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion (para 44).