Ameritech v. Utah Labor Commission

2009 UT 20
This opinion is subject to revision before final
publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
Ameritech Library Services 	No. 20070856
(DYNIX), and/or American
Manufacturing Mutual/Kemper,
Petitioners,
v.
Utah Labor Commission and 	F I L E D
Tamara Edmonds,
Respondents. 	April 7, 2009
---
Original Proceeding in the Court of Appeals
Attorneys: 	Theodore E. Kanell, John H. Romney, Salt Lake City,
for petitioners
Alan L. Hennebold, Salt Lake City, for respondent,
Utah Labor Commission
Phillip B. Shell, Murray, for respondent, Edmonds
---
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
WILKINS, Justice:
¶1 	Tamara Edmonds developed carpal tunnel syndrome while
employed by Ameritech Library Services. 	She sought coverage
under the Utah Occupational Disease Act by filing an application
for hearing with the Utah Labor Commission. 	Following an
evidentiary hearing by the Labor Commission and consideration by
a medical panel, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that
ten percent of the carpal tunnel syndrome could be attributed to
Edmonds’ work related activities. 	The ALJ therefore awarded
Edmonds ten percent of her medical expenses, reasoning that
apportionment was required under Utah Code section 34A-3-110 of
the Utah Occupational Disease Act. 	On review, the Labor
Commission determined that medical expenses should not be
apportioned in occupational disease claims and awarded Edmonds
one hundred percent of her medical expenses. 	This decision was
upheld by the Utah Court of Appeals in Ameritech Library Services

No. 20070856 	2
v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT App 305, 169 P.3d 784, and is now before
us on certiorari.
¶2 	We heard this case in conjunction with Dale T. Smith &
Sons v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2009 UT 19, 208 P.3d 533, which shares
the same relevant issue. 	In that opinion we held that in the
context of Utah Code section 34A-3-110, the term “compensation”
includes medical expenses. 	We therefore reverse the decision of
the court of appeals and remand for further proceedings pursuant
to the principles announced in Dale T. Smith & Sons.
¶3 	Reversed.
---
¶4 	Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Durrant,
Justice Parrish, and Justice Nehring concur in Justice Wilkins’
opinion.