What constitutes an unusual employment activity under Utah workers' compensation law? JBS Carriers v. Hickey Explained

The Utah Supreme Court recently clarified the Allen test for legal causation in workers’ compensation cases, providing important guidance for practitioners representing claimants with preexisting conditions.

Background and Facts

David Hickey worked as a long-haul truck driver for JBS Carriers. During a three-day route from Utah to California, he drove for approximately nine hours with only one break, keeping his left leg motionless due to the truck’s automatic transmission. After completing the route, Hickey developed deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli, requiring hospitalization and preventing his return to work. JBS disputed his workers’ compensation claim, arguing his injuries resulted from “super obesity” rather than his employment activities.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Hickey’s long-haul driving constituted an unusual or extraordinary activity under the Allen test. When a claimant has a preexisting condition, they must demonstrate both medical and legal causation. Legal causation requires showing that employment activities “contributed something substantial to increase the risk” already faced due to the preexisting condition.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that Hickey’s employment activities were unusual compared to typical daily life. The Court clarified that the totality of circumstances analysis should include all employment-related activities that precipitated the injury, not just those specifically required by the employer. The Court distinguished professional truck driving—requiring focused attention, remaining seated for extended periods, and operating an 18-wheel commercial vehicle—from passive activities like watching television or sitting on airplanes.

Practice Implications

This decision provides clearer guidance for applying the Allen test’s “unusual or extraordinary” standard. Practitioners should emphasize the complete picture of employment circumstances rather than limiting arguments to employer-mandated requirements. The Court’s analysis suggests that professional activities involving specialized skills, equipment, or sustained physical positioning may qualify as unusual even when similar activities exist in non-work contexts. However, the dissent’s criticism of the test’s subjective nature signals potential future developments in this area of law.