What constitutes unusual or extraordinary exertion in Utah workers' compensation cases? JBS Carriers v. Labor Commission Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a fundamental question in workers’ compensation law: when do workplace activities rise to the level of unusual or extraordinary exertions sufficient to establish legal causation? In JBS Carriers v. Labor Commission, the court reversed a workers’ compensation award to a truck driver who developed blood clots during a long-haul trip.

Background and Facts

David Hickey, a commercial truck driver, developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism during a multi-day trip from Utah to California. His truck had an automatic transmission, eliminating the need to use his left foot, and was equipped with a sleeper cab. During the trip, Hickey drove for approximately seven hours without interruption, then drove another two and a half hours after a break. Medical experts determined that Hickey’s “super obesity” was the primary factor contributing to the blood clot, making him 6-10 times more likely to develop DVT than his employment activities.

Key Legal Issues

The case centered on whether Hickey’s work activities constituted unusual or extraordinary exertions under the Allen v. Industrial Commission standard. When a preexisting condition contributes to a workplace injury, Utah law requires the employee to demonstrate that employment activities were the legal cause of the injury by showing the work involved exertions beyond those of ordinary daily life.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied a two-step analysis: first characterizing the employment activity, then determining whether it was objectively unusual or extraordinary. The court found no evidence that JBS required Hickey to drive without breaks or prohibited him from stretching during his duties. Critically, the court rejected the Labor Commission’s distinction between commercial truck driving and personal automobile travel, noting that the sedentary nature of long drives is essentially the same whether in a truck, car, airplane, or even while watching television.

The court emphasized that under Allen, the focus must be on “exertion required by the employment,” and here the job requirements left Hickey free to take regular breaks and move around. The court found nothing unusual or extraordinary beyond activities experienced by ordinary people in everyday life.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that the Allen standard requires a rigorous comparison between workplace activities and normal daily activities. Courts will not find legal causation simply because work activities are somewhat more complex than personal activities if the fundamental nature of the exertion remains the same. The ruling also highlights the importance of developing a complete factual record regarding actual job requirements versus employee choices, particularly regarding break opportunities and movement restrictions.