French v. Labor Commission

Court of Appeals of Utah

French v. Labor Commission

2011 UT App 120, 251 P.3d 868, 680 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 117, 2011 WL 1420891

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedApril 14, 2011

Docket20100456-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 120 (French v. Labor Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

French v. Labor Commission, 2011 UT App 120, 251 P.3d 868, 680 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 117, 2011 WL 1420891 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM.

T1 Cyndi French petitions for review of the final order of the Labor Commission (the Commission) affirming the denial of additional workers' compensation benefits. French argues that her continuing symptoms of overuse syndrome are caused by her employment with Advanta Bank Corp., which ended in 2009 when she was laid off in a large scale reduction in force.

12 On review, French asserts that two independent physical examinations performed during the course of proceedings were insufficient because neither used X-rays or MRIs to evaluate alleged physical damage. The general rule is that objections not raised in the agency proceeding are "considered waived and will not be considered by a court on review." Esquivel v. Labor Comm'n, 2000 UT 66, ¶ 34, 7 P.3d 777. French raises these objections for the first time on review by this court. Because she did not raise them in the ageney proceedings, these issues are not properly before this court and will not be considered. See id. 1

13 French also asserts there was evidence in the record contradicting the Commission's findings. This court will reverse an administrative agency's findings of fact "only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). After review of the record, it is clear that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings. The medical panel report was thorough, well-reasoned, and clear regarding its basis and conclusions. The medical panel concluded that French's symptoms were not caused by her employment. The report provides substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings.

[ 4 Affirmed.

1

. In her objections and appeals in the agency proceedings, French expressed her general disagreement with the conclusions of the medical examinations. She did not, however, assert that the examinations were not properly performed. To preserve an issue for review, the issue must be specifically raised in the proceedings. See 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION

PER CURIAM.

T1 Cyndi French petitions for review of the final order of the Labor Commission (the Commission) affirming the denial of additional workers' compensation benefits. French argues that her continuing symptoms of overuse syndrome are caused by her employment with Advanta Bank Corp., which ended in 2009 when she was laid off in a large scale reduction in force.

12 On review, French asserts that two independent physical examinations performed during the course of proceedings were insufficient because neither used X-rays or MRIs to evaluate alleged physical damage. The general rule is that objections not raised in the agency proceeding are "considered waived and will not be considered by a court on review." Esquivel v. Labor Comm'n, 2000 UT 66, ¶ 34, 7 P.3d 777. French raises these objections for the first time on review by this court. Because she did not raise them in the ageney proceedings, these issues are not properly before this court and will not be considered. See id. 1

13 French also asserts there was evidence in the record contradicting the Commission's findings. This court will reverse an administrative agency's findings of fact "only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). After review of the record, it is clear that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings. The medical panel report was thorough, well-reasoned, and clear regarding its basis and conclusions. The medical panel concluded that French's symptoms were not caused by her employment. The report provides substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings.

[ 4 Affirmed.

1

. In her objections and appeals in the agency proceedings, French expressed her general disagreement with the conclusions of the medical examinations. She did not, however, assert that the examinations were not properly performed. To preserve an issue for review, the issue must be specifically raised in the proceedings. See 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 120, 251 P.3d 868, 680 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 117, 2011 WL 1420891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-labor-commission-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack