She frustrated three doctors and drew sanctions - but the justices capped the fallout
The Utah Supreme Court just capped what employers can do when a worker blocks a required medical exam: suspend the claim, never dismiss it.
The decision, filed on July 16, 2026, ends a long fight over three failed medical exams and what an employer can do when a claimant will not cooperate.
The worker filed her claim in 2021, alleging that a 2015 injury to her thumb and elbow led to complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological pain condition. Her employer, Kroger, had a statutory right to send her to an independent medical exam, or IME, with a physician of its choice.
None of the three exams the employer arranged succeeded. The first physician refused to finish, alleging the worker was "very confrontational and very hostile" after learning she could not record the session. A second doctor cancelled before meeting her. A third ended the exam during a dispute over air conditioning, which the worker said aggravated her pain condition.
An administrative law judge suspended the claim and assessed costs. On appeal, the Labor Commission Appeals Board went further and dismissed the claim entirely. It described a "pattern of antagonistic and obstructive behavior" and treated the failed exams as ordinary discovery violations, the kind that let a tribunal dismiss a case under the state's civil procedure rules. It also imposed monetary sanctions on the worker's attorneys.
The Supreme Court reversed that dismissal. The workers' comp statute says an employee who obstructs an exam has her claim "suspended during the period of the refusal or obstruction." Because lawmakers spelled out one specific penalty, the court reasoned, they meant to rule out the rest. An agency rule, even one that borrows the courts' broader discovery sanctions, "cannot trump a statutory provision." Suspension, the court held, "is the only available sanction here."
The court did not decide whether the worker actually obstructed anything. That finding stays in place, so her claim remains frozen rather than revived. She simply cannot have it thrown out for good.
The justices also passed on the money question. Because the sanctions fell on her attorneys and not on her, the court held she was the wrong party to challenge them.
For HR and claims teams, the effect is clear. A claimant who stonewalls an IME cannot be pushed out of the system under this statute. Benefits stay suspended until she cooperates - which, the court said, should be incentive enough. The opinion is subject to revision before final publication, and the matter returns to the board.
