Case File
Suspension of a workers’ compensation claim during the period in which the claimant fails to cooperate is the only available sanction when an employee obstructs an Independent Medical Examination. The Utah Supreme Court held that. under Utah Code § 34A-2-602(2), permanent dismissal of the claim is not an authorized penalty.
Case
Laura Nycole Hooker v. Utah Labor Commission and Kroger Company, No. 20240556 (Utah 07/16/2026)
What Happened?
Laura Hooker claimed she suffered thumb and elbow injuries while working for Kroger, a grocery store, in 2015. This led to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. In 2021, she filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Utah Labor Commission. Kroger scheduled Hooker for IMEs with three different medical specialists.
Hooker objected to attending multiple examinations, arguing that Utah law only permits one IME per claim unless special circumstances exist. An Administrative Law Judge and later the Labor Commission disagreed, ruling that the statute does not limit employers to a single medical evaluation when investigating complex or multi-faceted injury claims. Hooker appealed.
Rule of Law
Under Utah Code § 34A-2-602(2), if an employee refuses to submit to or obstructs an IME, the mandatory statutory remedy is that the employee’s right to seek compensation shall be suspended during the period of refusal or obstruction. Because a specific statutory provision trumps general agency rules and civil discovery rules, administrative boards cannot apply Rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss a claim with prejudice for IME obstruction.
What the Court Said
The Utah Supreme Court acknowledged that rule 37(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Labor Commission has incorporated to allow for more general discovery sanctions, authorizes dismissal. However, it noted, Utah Code § 34A-2-602(2) specifically prescribes “suspension” as the sole mandatory sanction for obstructing an IME.
“[W]here Utah Code section 34A-2-602 provides for a specific sanction for obstruction of an IME, that must override the more general list of sanctions listed in rule 37(b),” the court said.
Verdict: The Utah Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and reinstated the suspension. It also held that Hooker lacked standing to appeal the monetary sanctions levied against her counsel.
Takeaway
Employers and their insurance carriers in Utah generally should not devote legal resources toward trying to convince a decision-making body to dismiss a claim just because an employee isn’t cooperating with, or is actively thwarting, the IME process. Administrative bodies lack the statutory authority to dismiss on that basis.
