Can administrative law judges appoint multiple medical panels in workers' compensation cases? Graphic Packaging v. Labor Commission Explained

In workers’ compensation cases involving complex medical issues, administrative law judges (ALJs) often rely on medical panels to provide expert opinions on causation and treatment. But what happens when the first panel fails to adequately address the issues? The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this question in Graphic Packaging v. Labor Commission, affirming that ALJs have discretion to appoint multiple panels when necessary.

Background and Facts

Jose Torres injured his back while working for Graphic Packaging in 2011, requiring surgery and resulting in permanent work restrictions. In 2013, he reinjured his back at work and sought temporary total disability benefits. The ALJ appointed a medical panel to resolve conflicting medical opinions about whether the 2013 incident was a temporary or permanent aggravation of the original injury. However, the first panel took seventeen months to issue its report and provided conclusions that contradicted all other medical professionals, finding the 2013 incident was an entirely new, unrelated injury. When the ALJ sought clarification, the panel took another seven months to respond with an inadequate follow-up report.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: (1) whether the ALJ properly exercised discretion in appointing a second medical panel, and (2) whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Torres reasonably refused the company’s light-duty work offer. The company argued that the statute does not authorize appointment of multiple panels and that the ALJ improperly treated panels as decisionmakers rather than advisory bodies.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the panel appointment decision, noting that Utah Code Section 34A-2-601(1)(a) grants the Commission discretionary power by stating it “may refer” medical aspects to “a medical panel.” The court rejected the company’s restrictive interpretation of “a medical panel,” finding the indefinite article does not limit the Commission to appointing only one panel. The court emphasized that the first panel’s seventeen-month delay, incomplete analysis, and members’ subsequent retirement provided reasonable justification for appointing a second panel.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling workers’ compensation cases with medical complexity. ALJs have broad discretion to manage medical panel appointments, including authority to appoint successive panels when the first proves inadequate. The decision also reinforces that reasonableness of refusing light-duty work must be evaluated based on information available to the employee at the time of refusal, not on subsequent medical findings. For employers, the case highlights the importance of making truly suitable light-duty accommodations rather than token offers that may be reasonably refused.