What constitutes unusual or extraordinary exertion in Utah workers' compensation claims? Peterson v. Labor Commission Explained

In Peterson v. Labor Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question in workers’ compensation law: when does workplace activity constitute unusual or extraordinary exertion sufficient to establish legal causation for employees with preexisting conditions?

Background and Facts

Leticia Peterson worked as a cake decorator at Fresh Market supermarket, where her duties included lifting cakes and frosting buckets weighing up to forty-two pounds. On October 5, 2011, Peterson injured her right rotator cuff while removing a sixteen-pound tray of cakes from a shoulder-height rack. The injury occurred as she twisted around and lifted the tray by placing her right palm underneath it “like a waiter” while her arm was extended behind her. Medical evaluation revealed Peterson had a preexisting shoulder condition that contributed to the injury.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Peterson’s lifting activity satisfied the Allen test, which requires workers with preexisting conditions to demonstrate that their employment “contributed something substantial to increase the risk” they already faced. This typically requires showing unusual or extraordinary exertion beyond normal daily activities.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied a totality of circumstances analysis, emphasizing that the manner of lifting was as important as the weight involved. While sixteen pounds might not constitute extraordinary weight alone, Peterson’s awkward lifting technique—reaching behind herself with an extended, supinated arm—distinguished her case from ordinary daily activities. The court compared Peterson’s situation to American Roofing Co. v. Industrial Commission, where unusual lifting manner, rather than excessive weight, established the required exertion standard.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners should focus on the specific mechanics of workplace injuries, not just the weight or force involved. When representing clients with preexisting conditions, detailed documentation of body positioning, lifting techniques, and workplace constraints that necessitate awkward movements can be crucial for establishing legal causation under Allen. The court’s analysis suggests that even routine workplace tasks can constitute unusual exertion when performed under awkward circumstances.