Court Opinion

ID: 9851212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:03.150246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.409333
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority that the Commission erred in its determination that aggravation of any one preexisting incapacity requires compensation for all preexisting incapacities. However, for the basic reasons set forth in my dissent in Chavez v. Industrial Commission, Utah, 709 P.2d 1168 (1985), I do not join the majority in its holding that no functional relationship is necessary between the industrial incapacity and the preexisting incapacity in order to support an award of compensation.
The “substantially greater” requirement of section 35-1-69(1) remains intact following the 1981 amendments. Consequently, I would reverse the contrary order of the Commission.