AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 worker, employed as a commercial painter, suffered a back injury in 1986 while working for a previous employer. After recovering and being unable to return to his former job, he found new employment. In 1989, while working for a subsequent employer, he aggravated his back injury while lifting a paint can, resulting in severe pain and temporary total disability. Medical evidence linked the 1986 injury to a herniated disc and the 1989 incident to an aggravation of that condition (paras 3-10).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: The judge found the worker temporarily totally disabled and apportioned liability for benefits and medical expenses between the previous employer (80%) and the subsequent employer (20%) (paras 1, 13).

Parties' Submissions

• Previous Employer: Argued that the workers' compensation judge lacked authority to apportion liability between employers and that the worker's claim was barred by the statute of limitations (para 1).
• Subsequent Employer: Defended the apportionment as consistent with prior case law and argued that the second injury was the proximate cause of the worker's disability (para 2).
• Worker: Asserted that both injuries contributed to his disability and sought compensation from both employers (paras 1-2).

Legal Issues

• Did the workers' compensation judge have the authority to apportion liability between the previous and subsequent employers?
• Was the worker's claim against the previous employer barred by the statute of limitations?
• Should the subsequent employer be solely liable for the worker's temporary total disability benefits?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the apportionment of liability and held the subsequent employer solely liable for the worker's temporary total disability benefits (para 40).
• The case was remanded to determine the degree of permanent impairment and whether the worker's claim against the previous employer was time-barred (para 40).

Reasons

Per Minzner J. (Alarid C.J. and Chavez J. concurring):

• The Court found that the evidence established the 1989 injury as the proximate cause of the worker's temporary total disability, making the subsequent employer initially liable for all benefits (paras 19-20).
• The apportionment of liability under Section 52-1-47(D) was improper because the evidence did not demonstrate an overlap of benefits or sufficient causation linking the 1986 injury to the 1989 disability (paras 19-21, 30).
• The Court distinguished the case from Urioste v. Sideris, where apportionment was upheld due to clear evidence of overlapping causation and a short interval between injuries (paras 26-28).
• The Court clarified that Section 52-1-47(D) prevents double recovery but does not allow apportionment without sufficient evidence of overlapping liability (paras 15, 19, 30).
• On remand, the workers' compensation judge must determine whether the worker's claim against the previous employer is time-barred and assess the degree of permanent disability caused by each injury (paras 35-38).