Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah appellate courts consider plain error arguments raised only in reply briefs? Marcroft v. Labor Commission Explained
Summary
Robert Marcroft challenged a Utah Labor Commission Appeals Board order that modified an ALJ decision regarding workers’ compensation benefits and third-party recovery offsets. The Board mistakenly stated the third-party recovery amount as $19,000 instead of the stipulated $15,000. Marcroft failed to preserve his challenge to this error and only raised plain error arguments in his reply brief.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Marcroft v. Labor Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals reinforced the strict preservation requirements that govern appellate practice, demonstrating the consequences when practitioners fail to properly address preservation issues in their opening briefs.
Background and Facts
Robert Marcroft was injured on the job in 2012 when hit by a car and received workers’ compensation benefits. The parties stipulated that payments from the at-fault driver’s $15,000 auto insurance policy would offset any workers’ compensation benefits. However, when the Labor Commission Appeals Board modified the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, it mistakenly stated that the third-party recovery amount was $19,000 rather than the stipulated $15,000.
Key Legal Issues
Marcroft challenged only the Board’s error regarding the subrogation amount, arguing it should be $15,000 less costs and attorney fees rather than $19,000. The respondents asserted that Marcroft failed to preserve this issue for appeal. Marcroft conceded the preservation failure in his reply brief and asked the court to apply the plain error exception.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court declined to consider Marcroft’s plain error argument because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. The court emphasized its consistent refusal to consider plain error arguments raised initially in reply briefs, even when responding to preservation challenges first raised in the appellee’s brief. The court noted that appellants bear the burden of establishing preservation or grounds for plain error review in their opening briefs under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the critical importance of addressing preservation issues comprehensively in opening briefs. Practitioners must anticipate potential preservation challenges and include appropriate arguments for plain error review when issues were not preserved below. The court’s strict application of these rules, even when the underlying error appears clear, demonstrates that procedural compliance cannot be remedied in reply briefs.
Case Details
Case Name
Marcroft v. Labor Commission
Citation
2015 UT App 174
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140241-CA
Date Decided
July 16, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The court will not consider plain error arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, even when responding to preservation challenges first raised in the appellee’s brief.
Standard of Review
Not addressed due to preservation issues
Practice Tip
Always address preservation issues and any potential plain error arguments in your opening brief, as courts will not consider such arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.