2017 UT App 64
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
ANTONIO O. VALDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LABOR COMMISSION AND
UNIFIED POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Respondents.
Opinion
No. 20150424-CA
Filed April 6, 2017
Original Proceeding in this Court
Ronald Ball, Virginius Dabney, and Stony Olsen,
Attorneys for Petitioner
Camille N. Johnson, Kenneth L. Reich, Maralyn M.
English, and Harry H. Souvall, Attorneys
for Respondents
JUDGE DAVID N. MORTENSEN authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. and KATE A. TOOMEY concurred.
MORTENSEN, Judge:
¶1 Antonio O. Valdez, a police officer, experienced back pain
after his patrol car came to an abrupt stop during an accident.
The Labor Commission’s Appeals Board denied him permanent
total disability benefits, and Valdez now seeks judicial review of
the denial. We decline to disturb that order.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Valdez worked as a police officer for the Unified Police
Department. In June 2010, as he was working a graveyard shift, a
car and a motorcycle raced past his patrol car. Intending to pull
over one or both of the drivers for speeding, Valdez pulled out
Valdez v. Labor Commission
of the parking lot where he had been finishing a report. Around
the same time, the speeding car turned in front of the speeding
motorcycle, and the motorcycle hit the car. Part of the
motorcycle, presumably dislodged during the collision, lay in
the street. Valdez was traveling seventy miles per hour in
pursuit of the vehicles when he ran into the dislodged
motorcycle part, and his vehicle came to an abrupt stop.
¶3 Valdez reported feeling a ‚crack‛ in his neck upon
impact. He also felt pain in his lower back as he exited his
vehicle. Valdez’s supervisor sent him home early because of his
neck and back pain, and when he woke up ‚later that day, he
had a very difficult time getting out of bed because his back was
so stiff.‛
¶4 Over the next two years, Valdez received treatment from
several doctors for back pain he attributed to the accident.
During the course of treatment, in December 2011, one doctor
concluded that Valdez ‚suffered from pre-existing diffuse
idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) of the thoracic spine,
multilevel degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine and
cervical degenerative changes.‛ His physical difficulties were
exacerbated when, in May 2012, he hit his head against a vehicle
door during ‚PIT maneuver‛1 training. Then, in August 2012,
Valdez ‚suffered a back strain at work when he had hand to
hand contact with a suspect during apprehension.‛
¶5 Ultimately, Valdez’s doctors restricted his work activities.
Because Valdez suffers from DISH, they concluded it would not
be ‚safe *for+ him to be exposed to potentially violent
1. ‚*A+ PIT (precision intercept technique) is a maneuver in
which an officer giving chase pushes the rear fender of the
suspect’s vehicle with the patrol car’s opposite front fender,
causing the suspect’s vehicle to spin out of control and come to a
stop.‛ Latits v. Phillips, 826 N.W.2d 190, 192 n.1 (Mich. Ct. App.
2012).
20150424-CA 2 2017 UT App 64
Valdez v. Labor Commission
encounters.‛ He was further limited from lifting more than ten
pounds, ‚stooping, pushing, pulling or prolonged standing or
sitting.‛ Given the practical implications of these restrictions on
the career of a police officer, Valdez filed for workers’
compensation benefits in December 2012. He requested medical
expenses, medical care, travel expenses, temporary total
disability compensation, and, eventually, permanent total
disability benefits. The Unified Police Department denied that
the accident was the legal or medical cause of Valdez’s current
condition.
¶6 The Utah Labor Commission (the Commission) submitted
the medical issues to an independent medical panel, asking it ‚to
conduct an impartial evaluation of the medical aspects of this
case.‛ Specifically, the Commission asked the medical panel:
(1) whether there was ‚a medically demonstrable causal
connection between‛ the accident and Valdez’s then-current
back problems; (2) ‚the date when, if ever, *Valdez’s+ medical
problems caused by [the accident] stabilized‛; (3) what
‚medical/functional restrictions, if any, from all conditions,
whether industrial or non-industrially caused‛ Valdez suffered;
and (4) what ‚medical/functional restrictions, if any, as the result
only of [the accident]‛ Valdez suffered.
¶7 The medical panel determined that the accident
aggravated Valdez’s preexisting DISH and degenerative joint
disease of the spine. It also concluded that all medical problems
related to the accident had stabilized by November 2011. The
more recent problems, the panel concluded, were attributable to
‚the ongoing progression of his pre-existing conditions,‛ and it
was this progression that ‚limited his ability to continue to work
as a police officer.‛ The medical panel acknowledged that
Valdez ‚should not be exposed to violent encounters, manual
physical training, or heavy lifting, twisting, prolonged standing,
which will aggravate DISH. In effect, [Valdez] is limited to
sedentary work.‛ But in response to the Commission’s final
question regarding what medical or functional restrictions
20150424-CA 3 2017 UT App 64
Valdez v. Labor Commission
Valdez suffered as a result of the accident, the medical panel
answered, ‚None.‛
¶8 The Commission issued its findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and order in December 2014. Relying on the medical panel’s
report, which the Commission determined was ‚supported by a
preponderance of the evidence,‛ the Commission concluded that
Valdez’s ‚current physical limitations are related to *Valdez’s+
pre-existing DISH condition, not the industrial accident.‛ Thus,
because the accident did not cause Valdez’s ‚inability to perform
former work,‛ the Commission denied Valdez’s claim for
permanent total disability compensation.2
¶9 Valdez appealed the Commission’s decision to the
Commission’s Appeals Board. The Appeals Board adopted the
findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Commission had
set forth and affirmed the Commission’s order. Valdez now
seeks judicial review of that decision.3
2. Valdez received temporary disability compensation pursuant
to an agreement with the Unified Police Department, which
covered ‚from the date of the accident through the date of the
agreement‛ in February 2012. The Commission determined that
because Valdez’s accident-related injuries were resolved by
November 2011, Valdez was ‚not entitled to any additional
temporary total disability compensation. He became medically
stable during the period covered by the Compensation
Agreement.‛ The Commission did, however, award Valdez
‚medical expenses incurred to treat his spinal condition through
November 2, 2011.‛
3. We review the decision of the Appeals Board. But because that
decision adopted the order of the Commission in its entirety,
throughout the rest of this decision we refer to both the
Commission and the Appeals Board simply as ‚the
(continued<)
20150424-CA 4 2017 UT App 64
Valdez v. Labor Commission
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶10 Valdez asks us to decide just one issue: ‚Whether *the
Commission] was correct when it concluded that a minor disease
was the sole cause of [his] conditions and thus denied
permanent total disability . . . .‛ But this is not the sort of
administrative agency decision we review for correctness. Cf.
Fogleman v. Labor Comm’n, 2015 UT App 294, ¶ 18, 364 P.3d 756
(reviewing the Commission’s interpretation of a statute for
correctness). The question is one of fact, albeit a factual question
best informed by expert testimony or evidence. See Hutchings v.
Labor Comm’n, 2016 UT App 160, ¶ 23, 378 P.3d 1273 (‚Medical
causation is fundamentally a factual determination.‛); Virgin v.
Board of Review of the Indus. Comm’n of Utah, 803 P.2d 1284, 1287
(Utah Ct. App. 1990) (‚Medical causation, including whether an
industrial accident aggravated a pre-existing condition, is a
factual matter.‛). Because medical causation is a question of fact,
Valdez’s challenge rests on whether the Commission’s decision
is ‚supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of
the whole record before the court.‛ See Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-
403(4)(g) (LexisNexis 2016). ‚A finding is supported by
substantial evidence when a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate the evidence supporting the decision.‛ Bailey v.
Retirement Board, 2012 UT App 365, ¶ 2, 294 P.3d 577 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
ANALYSIS
I. Compensability of Aggravated Injuries
¶11 Before we address the merits of Valdez’s challenge, we
consider the legal standard involved in compensating injured
(