Can workers' compensation benefits be apportioned when a single disease has multiple causes? Barker v. Labor Commission Explained

In a significant victory for injured workers, the Utah Court of Appeals held in Barker v. Labor Commission that workers’ compensation benefits cannot be apportioned when a claimant suffers from only one disease, even if that disease has both occupational and non-occupational causes.

Background and Facts

Dirk Barker worked for Burrell Mining Products for 25 years, during which he was exposed to welding fumes, fly ash, cement, and foam concentrate. Barker also had a history of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. In 2017, he was diagnosed with severe, progressive COPD and emphysema that prevented him from working. A medical panel concluded that Barker’s COPD was 25% attributable to occupational exposure and 75% attributable to smoking. Based on this finding, the Labor Commission reduced his permanent total disability benefits by 75%.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah’s apportionment statute permits reduction of benefits where a worker has only one disability but that disability results from a disease with both industrial and non-industrial causes. The court also addressed who bears the burden of proof for apportionment and whether a claimant has the right to record an insurer’s medical examination.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court conducted a detailed analysis of Utah Code § 34A-3-110’s four subsections. It determined that subsections (3) and (4) apply only where multiple diseases cause disability, while subsections (1) and (2) could theoretically apply to multiple causes of a single disease. However, neither subsection (1) nor (2) applied to Barker’s facts. The court emphasized the crucial distinction between apportioning disability and apportioning causes of disease, concluding that Utah’s statute does not permit the latter where only one disease causes the disability.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that employers bear the burden of proving apportionment is appropriate, as they are the proponents of benefit reduction. The ruling also confirms that claimants have the right under Rule 35 to record insurer medical examinations unless the employer shows recording would unduly interfere. For practitioners, this case provides strong precedent against apportionment in single-disease cases and reinforces the liberal construction of workers’ compensation statutes in favor of employee coverage.