Hunsaker v American Healthcare Capital

Hunsaker sued American alleging it negligently performed a business valuation causing her damages. American moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction which the district court granted. The panel reversed. It held that American purposely availed itself of the befits of doing business in Utah by exchanging emails with Hunsaker and sending the final report to her at her Utah address, by holding itself out as company that does evaluations in Utah and performing evaluations in Utah and damages followed in Utah taking the factual allegations as true. The panel noted that Internet use alone does not defeat personal jurisdiction as the emails created a business relationship. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Miles v Department of Workforce

Miles appealed Department’s refusal to reopen her case based on late filing. The panel affirmed. It held that Miles field her motion late and failed to present evidence of good cause to overcome the late filing.

In the Interests of N.D. and N.D. (J.D. v State)

J.D. challenged the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that because J.D. failed to challenge one of the grounds the family court used to terminate her rights, her challenge failed as a matter of law. It held that termination is in the children’s best interest as they are thriving in their foster placement, have overcome developmental delays and termination will allow them to be adopted.

In the Interests of R.A., A.A. and S.A. (C.A. v State)

C.A. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that the record supported the family court’s finding of unfitness given C.A. abuse of prescription drugs which rendered her unable to parent and her failure to take advantage of services offered to her to overcome the addiction.

Danny’s Drywall v Labor Commission

Commission granted permanent total disability benefits to a former employee of Danny’s. Danny’s appealed and the panel affirmed. It held that the administrative law judge did not abuse her discretion by adopting the report of a medical panel as the panel correctly looked at the claimant’s medical history, current limitations and the connection between his injury on the job and his current limitations. The panel held that Commission’s adoption of the medical report is due deference because the report as a whole states its conclusions to a medical certainty. The panel also deferred to the Commission’s decision to consider statements by family members at the independent medical exam as relevant statute allows consideration of facts that supplement the record and there is no right to cross examine anyone during an exam. The panel held the Danny’s waived its arguments about the interim order by failing to raise them below and in any event the medical panel properly considered all the relevant medicaal facts. The panel held that Commission permissibly relied on the panel report and the panel would not reweigh the evidence. The panel finally denied claimant’s motion for attorney fees as Danny’s appeal was not an egregious case.