Opinion
Case No. 20030152-CA.
Filed August 19, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Original Proceeding in this Court.
Michael Gary Belnap, Ogden, for Petitioner.
Alan Hennebold, Theodore E. Kanell, and D. Scott Berrett, Salt Lake City, for Respondents.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Christy Cunningham appeals the Labor Commission Appeals Board's (the Commission) decision rejecting her claim for additional workers' compensation benefits. We affirm.
Cunningham first argues that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to enter its own findings of fact or formally adopt the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). We disagree. "[B]ecause the Legislature has explicitly delegated discretion to the Commission to apply the law in this area[,] . . . we will affirm the Commission's decision so long as it falls within `the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.'" Whitear v. Labor Comm'n, 973 P.2d 982, 984 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (quoting Smith v. Mity Lite, 939 P.2d 684, 686 (Utah Ct.App. 1997)). Additionally, pursuant to the Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), see Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-46b-05 to -22 (1997), we are empowered to grant relief in cases like this one "only if, on the basis of the agency's record, [we] determine that [Cunningham] has been substantially prejudiced by [inter alia, our finding that] the agency action is . . . arbitrary or capricious." Adams v. Industrial Comm'n, 821 P.2d 1, 4 (Utah Ct.App. 1991) (quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). "The question of whether the Commission's action constitutes arbitrary action for want of adequate findings is governed by our determination of whether this court is able to conduct a meaningful review." Id.
At Cunningham's request, the Commission reviewed the ALJ's decision. The Commission reviewed all of the factual findings that Cunningham challenged, "including [the ALJ's] reliance on the medical panel's conclusions." After reviewing the evidence, as made clear in its written order, the Commission accepted and adopted the ALJ's decision. In so doing, the Commission, by implication, adopted the ALJ's five pages of factual findings, which comprised a substantial portion of the ALJ's decision. Consequently, we conclude that Cunningham's allegation that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner is misplaced. Contrary to Cunningham's position on appeal, the Commission did indeed accept and adopt the ALJ's factual findings, and the findings are sufficiently detailed to allow this court to conduct the necessary meaningful review. See id. at 5 (stating "findings should be sufficiently detailed to disclose the steps by which the ultimate factual conclusions, or conclusions of mixed fact and law, are reached" (quotations and citation omitted)). Upon review, we conclude that the Commission's order was not arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.
In its order, the Commission states that the ALJ's findings are "supported by the medical panel's report, which the Commission concludes is the most persuasive evidence regarding the medical aspects of Ms. Cunningham's claims." Thus, there is no question that the Commission examined the ALJ's findings, and, after finding them supported by the record, adopted them.
Were we to conclude that the Commission erred in not specifically adopting the ALJ's findings, Cunningham has failed to demonstrate how, in the face of the ALJ's extensive factual findings, such a failure would have substantially prejudiced her. See Adams v. Industrial Comm'n, 821 P.2d 1, 7-8 (Utah Ct.App. 1991).
Cunningham also alleges that certain factual findings are incorrect. Specifically, Cunningham challenges findings related to the date of her maximum medical improvement, her whole person impairment rating, and the denial of certain medical care requests as not reasonable or necessary for her condition. "In reviewing the Commission's factual findings, we will affirm them whenever they are `supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.'" Whitear, 973 P.2d at 984 (citation omitted). Each of the findings that Cunningham challenges is supported not only by the medical panel's report, which in this case would satisfy our requirement that findings be supported by substantial evidence, but also by the affidavits of at least two other independent physicians. Cunningham's reliance upon the opinion of another physician is insufficient to negate this evidence and her argument is insufficient to overcome the substantial record evidence that supports the findings. Consequently, we conclude that Cunningham's challenges to these findings are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's order denying Cunningham's petition for additional workers' compensation benefits.
WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge.