Lee v. Labor Comm'n

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Ada Christine Lee,

Petitioner,

v.

Utah Labor Commission, and Encompass Technologies,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030963-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 15, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 115

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Ada Christine Lee, West Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se

Michael E. Dyer, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

Encompass Technologies

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the basis that the issues presented are so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration by the court. See Utah R. App. P. 10(a)(2). Petitioner (Lee) seeks review of the Utah Labor Commission's (Commission) decision denying her temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, or partial permanent disability.

This court will not reverse an agency's factual findings as long as they are "supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997); Albertson's Inc. v. Department of Employment Sec., 854 P.2d 570, 573 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). "An agency's application of law to its findings of fact will not be disturbed unless its determination 'exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.'" Johnson v. Department of Employment Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct. App. 1989)(citation omitted).

Based upon this standard, Lee has not provided a basis to overturn the Commission's decision. Her argument in response to this court's motion is a factual recounting of the unfortunate situation in which she finds herself as a result of being denied benefits. Lee contends that there exists evidence that she has qualified for social security disability on the basis of a "permanent heart impairment." However, she provided no support for this claim to the agency, nor to this court. Even assuming she had, such evidence does not conclusively demonstrate qualification for employment benefits.

The agency determined that the "objective" date of stabilization, provided by the medical panel, controlled over the "subjective" symptoms reported by Lee. This decision does not exceed the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.

Lee's petition for review is summarily denied.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge