## Facts

- In 1993, Gina Christensen began working for Smith’s Food and Drug, Inc. as a cheese cook.
- The job required physically demanding 12-hour shifts that included repeated lifting, pushing, and pulling of large equipment.
- In July 2001, Christensen began experiencing shoulder pain that increased while she worked.
- In November 2001, Christensen experienced a different type of shoulder soreness and developed constant wrist and elbow pain along with numbness in two fingers.
- Christensen sought medical care. Her treating physician concluded that she had suffered an acute event caused by a work-related injury.
- At Smith’s request, a second physician evaluated Christensen and concluded there was no causal relationship between her work and her condition, attributing her problems to a preexisting condition.
- In August 2002, Christensen filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
- Because the medical opinions conflicted, the Utah Labor Commission appointed a medical panel to review the medical record and provide an opinion on causation.
- The medical panel’s report supported Christensen’s claim, and the Labor Commission granted workers’ compensation benefits.
- Smith’s petitioned the Utah Court of Appeals for review, arguing that Christensen was not “injured by accident” and therefore was not entitled to benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the Labor Commission erred in concluding that Christensen suffered an “injury by accident” arising out of and in the course of employment when her symptoms developed and worsened during repetitive work rather than from a single traumatic incident.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s causation finding, including its reliance on the medical panel’s opinion in the face of contrary medical evidence offered by Smith’s.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Commission’s award of workers’ compensation benefits.
- The court held that the Commission could treat Christensen’s work-related condition as an “injury by accident” even though it was connected to repetitive, strenuous duties and manifested through a change and worsening of symptoms over time.
- The court held that the Commission’s factual findings on causation were supported by substantial evidence, including the treating physician’s assessment and the medical panel’s report.
- The court declined to reweigh competing medical opinions and accepted the Commission’s role in resolving conflicts in the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Utah’s Workers’ Compensation Act, benefits are available for an “injury by accident” arising out of and in the course of employment.
- An “accident” is not limited to a single dramatic mishap; it may be shown where work activity results in an unexpected injury or harmful change during employment.
- Repetitive or cumulative work activity may satisfy the “accident” requirement when the record supports a work-related injury or an identifiable worsening tied to employment conditions.
- A preexisting condition does not bar recovery if work activity causes a compensable injury or work-related aggravation, as found by the Commission based on the evidence it credits.
- The Labor Commission is the finder of fact on medical causation and may accept a medical panel’s opinion over an employer-retained evaluator.
- On judicial review, the appellate court asks whether the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed as a whole, and it will not retry factual disputes.

## Conclusion

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Commission’s award because the Commission had an adequate evidentiary basis—especially the medical panel report and treating physician opinion—to find that Christensen’s repetitive heavy work led to a compensable accidental injury (or work-related aggravation) despite Smith’s contrary medical evidence.


Smith's Food and Drug, Inc. v. Labor Commission, 250 P.3d 1008 (2011)