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 suffered a workplace injury on June 8, 2015, and timely notified his employer. The employer's insurer accepted the injury as compensable, and the worker began receiving disability benefits following shoulder surgery. These benefits continued even after the worker reached maximum medical improvement. However, there was no formal or informal documentation provided to the worker detailing the benefit schedule or payment specifics. The worker's final disability benefits check was issued on April 26, 2018, and he filed a formal complaint on October 9, 2019, seeking a determination of future benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a "compensation order," thus the two-year statute of limitations should apply. Alternatively, argued that the WCJ’s finding of termination was erroneous, and the one-year statute of limitations should have been tolled. Also contended that the application of the one-year statute of limitations was contrary to law (para 4).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing that the worker's claim was time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a "compensation order" that would apply the two-year statute of limitations.
• Whether the worker's employment status should toll the one-year statute of limitations.
• Whether the application of the one-year statute of limitations to the worker's claim was contrary to law.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and its insurer, concluding the worker's claim was time-barred (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Ives, J., with Bogardus, J., and Henderson, J., concurring, held that:
  The WCJ did not err in concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a "compensation order," thus Section 52-5-9 was inapplicable. The court found that the worker did not present evidence of a mutual understanding regarding specific payment terms that could form a "compensation order" (paras 6-10).
  The WCJ did not err in concluding the tolling provision of Section 52-1-31(A) was inapplicable. The court determined there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the worker's employment status, noting his employment was always in a temporary capacity and ended after his last six-month rehire period without subsequent rehire or contact about returning to work (paras 11-16).
  The WCJ's application of the one-year statute of limitations under Section 52-1-31(A) was not contrary to law. The court clarified that the worker's October 9, 2019, complaint was an "initial claim for compensation" under the statute, and since it was filed after the one-year deadline from the last benefits check, the claim was time-barred (paras 17-20).