Opinion ID: 2639711
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Legislature Intended to Give the Commission Discretion to Interpret Other Work Reasonably Available Under Section 34A-2-413(1)(c)(iv)

Text: ¶ 17 Because section 34A-2-413(1)(c)(iv) is ambiguous, we look to legislative history to discern the legislature's intent. The relevant legislative history reveals that the legislature did not intend to confine the meaning of other work reasonably available to the five factors enumerated in the statute. Both the Utah Senate and House floor debates reflect the intent to allow the Commission to consider the geographic location of available work, which is not one of the five enumerated factors, in determining whether other work is reasonably available. ¶ 18 LPI argues that, when amending the Workers' Compensation Act in 1995, the Utah Senate twice rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Commission to take into account the locality of the work in determining whether other work was reasonably available. Upon evaluation of the legislative history, we find this argument unpersuasive. [3] The first rejection of a locality of work requirement occurred in a debate regarding the portions of the bill that allowed employers to locate part-time work for their PTD employees and that required the employee to fully cooperate with the employer's efforts. [4] Audio Recording: Senate Debate on S.B. 123, 51st Leg. Gen. Sess. (Feb. 21, 1995). Although this amendment failed, it did not fail because the Senate did not want the Commission to take into consideration the geographic location of the available part-time work; rather, it failed because the senators apparently thought it was unnecessary. Id. ¶ 19 LPI's brief also points to a second failed amendment. In debating section 34A-2-413, the senate chose not to insert in the local economy after other work reasonably available. Id. LPI argues that the Senate's refusal to include this language made clear that the Commission may not consider geographic location when determining whether other work is reasonably available. But the floor debates make clear that the debating senators agreed that geographic location considerations are best left to the reasonable discretion of the Commission and disagreed only about what statutory language would best fulfill this purpose. Audio Recording: Senate Debate on S.B. 123, 51st Leg. Gen. Sess. (Feb. 22, 1995). Indeed, the House floor debates confirm that the legislature did not intend to require the Commission to find that work was reasonably available if it was outside the geographic area of the injured worker. Audio Recording: House Debate on S.B. 123, 51st Leg. Gen. Sess. (Feb. 28, 1995). ¶ 20 In summary, the legislative history reveals that neither the House nor the Senate intended to confine the meaning of other work reasonably available to the five factors enumerated in the statute. Thus, LPI's argument that other work reasonably available should be considered only in light of those five factors is untenable.