Court Opinion

ID: 9628558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:24:24.781113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:25.254876
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent. I believe that § 35-1-69, as amended in 1981, can be read and construed so that there is no conflict between its paragraphs. The first paragraph, which is the original language of the section, simply provides in general terms that there shall be an apportionment between the employer or its insurer and The Second Injury Fund. Under this paragraph, we held in Intermountain Health Care, Inc. v. Ortega, Utah, 562 P.2d 617 (1977), that The Second Injury Fund was liable for a portion of the temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses incurred during that disability.
In an apparent effort to modify that ruling, the legislature in 1981 added paragraph three, which spelled out in specific terms how the cost of the benefits awarded to a worker should be apportioned. It broke the payment of benefits into two periods. The first period covers up to the end of the period of temporary total disability. It is dealt with in the first sentence, which provides that the employer or its insurance carrier shall be responsible (or liable) for the payment of temporary total disability benefits, medical expenses and other related items. No provision is made for any reimbursement.
The second period covers the time after the end of the period of temporary total disability. That period is dealt with in the second sentence of paragraph three. It is there provided that an allocation shall be made between the employer or its insurer and The Second Injury Fund for disability benefits and medical care paid during that period. Any excess paid by the employer or its insurer during this second period (presumably before the allocation is made) is recoverable by them from The Second Injury Fund.
In so construing § 31-1-69, effect is given to both paragraphs one and three and we are not left to presume that the legislature engaged in a useless act in adding paragraph three to the section.
I would affirm the Industrial Commission.
OAKS, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HOWE, J.