 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Giles v. Labor Commission1/6/2005
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not For Official Publication
Original Proceeding in this Court.
Glenda Giles petitions for review from the dismissal of her claim for benefits due to an occupational disease.
In 2000, Giles filed an application for hearing, asserting a claim against Oakridge Country Club and its insurers (collectively Oakridge) based on an alleged occupational disease incurred as a result of her employment with Oakridge. Other former employers and other insurers were added to the claim shortly thereafter. An administrative law judge (ALJ) granted respondents' various motions for summary judgment or dismissal of Giles's claim in June 2002. Giles moved for review. Her motion for review was denied in May 2003. Giles filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied in July 2003. Giles then petitioned this court for review.
Giles asserts the Labor Commission (Commission) erred when it affirmed the ruling of the ALJ dismissing her claim against all respondents. The claim was dismissed for different reasons for the various respondents. The claim against the IRS was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction over a federal agency. Giles does not challenge this ruling.
The claim against Wasatch Crest Mutual Insurance Company, Constitution State Service Company, Transportation Insurance Company, and ACE USA/Pacific Employer's Insurance Company (ACE) was dismissed because these insurers did not provide insurance coverage to employers at the relevant times. The claim as against Oakridge was summarily dismissed because of a settlement of a prior claim. The claim against Adecco was summarily dismissed because Giles presented no evidence that would support any causation or contribution to her illness from her employment at Adecco.
The posture of this case determines the standard of review and Giles's burden on review. Giles's claim was dismissed based on motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, agencies are not constrained from granting motions for summary judgment or dismissal if the requirements of rules 56 or 12(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure are met. See Utah Code Ann. ยง 63-46b-1(4) (2004).
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and the "moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). When a motion for summary judgment is properly supported, an adverse party may not rest on allegations only, but "by affidavits or as otherwise provided . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue" of fact. Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e).
If this court concludes there is a dispute as to a material issue of fact, it must remand for a determination of the facts. See Lucky Seven Rodeo Corp. v. Clark, 755 P.2d 750, 752 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). However, " hen a party opposes a properly supported motion for summary judgment and fails to file any responsive affidavits or other evidentiary materials allowed by Rule 56(e), the trial court may properly conclude that there are no genuine issues of fact." Busch Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 743 P.2d 1217, 1219 (Utah 1987). Absent a genuine issue of material fact, "the Court need only decide whether, on the basis of the applicable law, the moving party is entitled to judgment." Id. " are contentions, unsupported by any specification of facts in support thereof, raise no material questions of fact as will preclude the entry of summary judgment." Schnuphase v. Storehouse Markets, 918 P.2d 476, 477-78 (Utah 1996).
A motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) admits the facts as alleged, but challenges a plai
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|