permanent total disability claim in Utah

2017See Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , 2007 UT 42 , ¶ 33, 164 P.3d 384 . ¶ 16 Other than the significant impairment and causation provisions, the elements of a permanent total disability claim are all specific inquiries into an employee's ability to work.

2017See Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , 2007 UT 42 , ¶ 33, 164 P.3d 384 . ¶ 16 Other than the significant impairment and causation provisions, the elements of a permanent total disability claim are all specific inquiries into an employee's ability to work.

2015"Factual questions are generally regarded as entailing the empirical, such as things, events, actions, or conditions happening, existing, or taking place, as well as the subjective, such as state of mind." State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 985 (Utah 1994).

2015“Factual questions are generally regarded as entailing the empirical, such as things, events, actions, or conditions happening, existing, or taking place, as well as the subjective, such as state of mind.” State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 935 (Utah 1994).

2017It had nothing to say about the latter. ¶ 83 The Provo City opinion simply holds that full range of motion in a worker's head and neck is not a matter that goes to "basic work activities." We had no occasion in Provo City to decide how much of a limit on neck flexibility would be enough to satisfy this element of the permanent total disability standard because we concluded that neck flexibility was not a "basic work activity"-in that it was not something necessary to "perform most types of jobs." Provo City , 2015 UT 32 , ¶ 29, 345 P.3d 1242 . ¶ 84 This analysis is entirely in keeping with the

2017It had nothing to say about the latter. ¶ 83 The Provo City opinion simply holds that full range of motion in a worker's head and neck is not a matter that goes to "basic work activities." We had no occasion in Provo City to decide how much of a limit on neck flexibility would be enough to satisfy this element of the permanent total disability standard because we concluded that neck flexibility was not a "basic work activity"-in that it was not something necessary to "perform most types of jobs." Provo City , 2015 UT 32 , ¶ 29, 345 P.3d 1242 . ¶ 84 This analysis is entirely in keeping with the

2019See Quast v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 40, ¶ 26 , 424 P.3d 15 (stating that “the employee bears the burden of proof on all elements of a permanent total disability claim”).

2019See Quast v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 40, ¶ 26 , 424 P.3d 15 (stating that “the employee bears the burden of proof on all elements of a permanent total disability claim”).

2017The court of appeals agreed with the Labor Commission's analysis, holding that Ms. Quast's "employer failed to prove that there was other work reasonably available to [Ms.] Quast." Quast v. Labor Comm'n , 2015 UT App 267 , ¶ 10, 362 P.3d 292 . ¶ 26 It was error for the Labor Commission and the court of appeals to suggest that Ms. Quast's employer ever had the burden of proof on this-or any-element of a permanent total disability claim.

2017The court of appeals agreed with the Labor Commission's analysis, holding that Ms. Quast's "employer failed to prove that there was other work reasonably available to [Ms.] Quast." Quast v. Labor Comm'n , 2015 UT App 267 , ¶ 10, 362 P.3d 292 . ¶ 26 It was error for the Labor Commission and the court of appeals to suggest that Ms. Quast's employer ever had the burden of proof on this-or any-element of a permanent total disability claim.