Case Lesson: Trucker Links Blood Clots to Long, Strange Trip from Utah to California

Hyrum, UT (WorkersCompensation.com)–Employers may have to pay workers’ compensation benefits even if a worker’s preexisting injury might have contributed to an on-the-job injury. 

While a long-haul trucker’s “super obesity” arguably constituted a preexisting condition, a Utah company had to pay him benefits when the employee developed blood clots that put the brakes on his trucking career.  

As readers of today's What Do You Think Featrue learned, in JBS Carriers v. Utah Labor Commission, No. 20210321 (Utah 06/30/22), the trucker was driving a commercial diesel truck from Utah to California—a trip that took three days in total. On the day in question, he drove six hours straight, took a break, and then drove another three hours. The massive vehicle shifted automatically, so the trucker rarely moved his left leg. He also sat in the truck when it was being loaded and unloaded. 

A deep dive into the case show how the court determined that the driver's injuries were compensable.

During the trip, the trucker developed leg pain and shortness of breath. After arriving at his destination in California, he checked into a hospital, where he was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis. Afterward, he was unable to return to work. 

Everyday Life?

The Utah Supreme Court explained that in Utah, a claimant with a relevant preexisting condition must show his employment contributed something substantial to increase the risk he already faced in everyday life because of his condition. The question, the court specified, is whether the activity that precipitated the injury is objectively “unusual or extraordinary" when compared with typical, nonemployment life.  

The state supreme court, assuming for the moment that the trucker’s obesity was a preexisting condition, held that driving a commercial truck for nine hours with little movement or breaks was distinct from typical nonemployment activities that people undertake in everyday life.   

The court rejected the appeals’ court’s view that the activity was comparable to being a couch potato and watching tv for several hours. The extended trip on state highways, the court added, was distinguishable from taking a long road trip in a car or taking an international flight.  

The question of whether an employment activity is unusual, the court observed, is not whether its corollary can be found in everyday non-work activities. The question is whether it is an activity that people usually do in everyday life.  

“[W]hile some people may watch television for nine hours straight without moving, take nine-hour international flights and leave their seat only once, or go on long road trips, we cannot describe these as typical of the usual, ordinary activities people do day to day,” the Supreme Court wrote.   

Different from Ordinary Activities

As to the notion that the trucker’s job activities were comparable to a non-work road trip, the court observed that trucking is more complex and taxing than driving a personal car. Further, the trucker was not merely sitting passively, as an airline passenger might. He had to remain focused, and stationary. “[The job] was certainly more demanding than sitting on a sofa watching television or sitting on an airplane as a passenger,” the court wrote.  

The court reversed the court of appeals’ decision, finding that the trucker demonstrated that his employment activities were the legal cause of his injuries, even if his obesity constituted a preexisting condition.