exacting standard in Utah

2013Instead, we concluded that once the initial injury is determined to be a compensa-ble injury, "the employer is responsible for 'all medical[ costs] resulting from [the com-pensable] injury, including costs resulting from subsequent aggravations to the com-pensable workplace injury." Id. ¶ 21 (alterations in original) (quoting McKean, 706 P.2d at 602 ).

2002To meet the legal causation requirement, a claimant with a preexisting condition implicated in the claim must demonstrate that his workplace efforts "exceeded the exertion that the average person undertakes in nonem-ployment life." Id. 121 However, whether or not a claimant suffers from a preexisting condition, once benefits are properly awarded, the employer is responsible for "all medical{ costs] resulting from [the compensable] injury," including costs resulting from subsequent aggravations to the compensable workplace injury. 3 McKean, 706 P.2d at 602 . *473 122 We conclude that it would b

2019This construction seems sound especially when considered in conjunction with fundamental right jurisprudence generally, a litigant’s options when litigating right to initiative claims, and the purpose the initiative process serves. ¶92 While purporting to require “a more exacting analysis” than traditional minimum scrutiny review, Safe to Learn, 2004 UT 32, ¶ 37 , the Safe to Learn standard stands in stark contrast to the strict or heightened scrutiny that courts have consistently applied in cases implicating fundamental rights.

2013Relying in part on McKean's treatment of subsequent compen-sable injuries, id. 19 18, 21, we held that "it would be inappropriate to examine subsequent aggravations of compensable work-related injuries by applying the same exacting standard that we apply when determining the compensability of primary workplace injuries involving preexisting conditions," id. €22.

2013Relying in part on McKean's treatment of subsequent compen-sable injuries, id. 19 18, 21, we held that "it would be inappropriate to examine subsequent aggravations of compensable work-related injuries by applying the same exacting standard that we apply when determining the compensability of primary workplace injuries involving preexisting conditions," id. €22.

2007The proof of amount of damages is a less exacting standard because "(ilt is, after all, the wrongdoer, rather than the injured party, who should bear the burden of some uncertainty in the amount of damages." Id.

2007Thus, "[the amount of damages may be based upon approximations, if the fact of damage is established, and the approximations are based upon reasonable assumptions or projections." Id.

2006In State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994), the Utah Supreme Court stated that “[tjhose asking [the court] to overturn prior precedent have a substantial burden of persuasion.

2006In State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994), the Utah Supreme Court stated that "[t]hose asking [the court] to overturn prior precedent have a substantial burden of persuasion.

2002To meet the legal causation requirement, a claimant with a preexisting condition implicated in the claim must demonstrate that his workplace efforts "exceeded the exertion that the average person undertakes in nonem-ployment life." Id. 121 However, whether or not a claimant suffers from a preexisting condition, once benefits are properly awarded, the employer is responsible for "all medical{ costs] resulting from [the compensable] injury," including costs resulting from subsequent aggravations to the compensable workplace injury. 3 McKean, 706 P.2d at 602 . *473 122 We conclude that it would b