Utah Court of Appeals
Can parties file cross-appeals in Utah administrative proceedings? C.R. England v. Labor Commission Explained
Summary
C.R. England challenged the Labor Commission’s order requiring payment of temporary total disability benefits to employee Mansoor Hakem for a specific time period, claiming it had already paid those benefits. Hakem attempted to file a cross-appeal seeking additional benefits, but did so more than 30 days after the Commission’s final order.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in C.R. England v. Labor Commission addressed an important procedural limitation that catches many practitioners off guard: the inability to file cross-petitions in judicial review of administrative agency decisions.
Background and Facts
After employee Mansoor Hakem was injured while working for C.R. England, the company claimed it had already paid $54,510 in temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The Utah Labor Commission later ordered England to pay additional TTD benefits for the period from February 3, 2016, to June 14, 2016, totaling $14,899.40. England timely filed a petition for review within 30 days of the Commission’s final order. Hakem then attempted to file what he styled a “cross-appeal” on March 5, 2020, seeking additional benefits—but this filing came more than 30 days after the Commission’s final order.
Key Legal Issues
The court first addressed its jurisdiction to consider Hakem’s cross-petition, then examined whether the Commission’s award of TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence given England’s claim of duplicate payments.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court dismissed Hakem’s cross-petition for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that the Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) requires parties to file their own petition for review within 30 days of an agency’s final order. Unlike judicial proceedings where Rule 4 permits cross-appeals, Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 18 explicitly excludes Rules 3 through 8 (including the cross-appeal provision) from applying to administrative reviews. The court noted this creates inefficiency and suggested the Supreme Court consider rule amendments to allow cross-petitions in administrative contexts.
On the merits, the court set aside the Commission’s order because it lacked substantial evidence regarding England’s payment history. While England claimed to have already paid benefits during the disputed period, it provided insufficient documentation to support this assertion beyond basic mathematical calculations.
Practice Implications
This decision highlights a critical procedural trap in Utah administrative appeals. Practitioners must file separate, timely petitions for review rather than relying on cross-petition procedures available in judicial appeals. The court’s suggestion for rule changes indicates this limitation may be reconsidered, but until then, strict compliance with the 30-day filing deadline is essential for preserving appellate rights in administrative proceedings.
Case Details
Case Name
C.R. England v. Labor Commission
Citation
2021 UT App 108
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200181-CA
Date Decided
October 15, 2021
Outcome
Remanded
Holding
Cross-petitions are not permitted in judicial review proceedings of agency action under UAPA and Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, and parties must file their own petition for review within 30 days of the agency’s final order.
Standard of Review
Substantial evidence for factual determinations by the Labor Commission; questions of law reviewed for correctness for appellate jurisdiction issues
Practice Tip
In administrative appeals, file a separate petition for review within 30 days rather than attempting to cross-appeal, as UAPA and appellate rules do not permit cross-petitions in agency review proceedings.
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.