Barrios v. Zing, L.L.C., 083016 IDWC, IC 2014-002296

• Case Date: August 30, 2016
• Court: Idaho

JOSUE BARRIOS, Claimant, v. ZING, L.L.C., Employer, and IDAHO STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, Defendants. No. IC 2014-002296 Idaho Workers Compensation Before the Industrial Commission of the state of Idaho August 30, 2016           FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER           R.D. Maynard, Chairman          INTRODUCTION          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Industrial Commission assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee Douglas A. Donohue. He conducted a hearing in Boise on March 31, 2016.1Richard Owen represented Claimant. James Ford represented Defendants Employer and Surety. The parties presented oral and documentary evidence and later submitted briefs. The case came under advisement on July 11, 2016. The Commission has reviewed the proposed decision, and agrees with the result. However, the Commission concludes that different treatment of Idaho Code § 72-432 is indicated, and therefore substitutes this decision for that proposed by the Referee.          ISSUES          The following issues are to be decided at this time:

1. Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to decide whether the fees and costs of the following individuals are compensable benefits under Idaho Workers' Compensation Law, and if so, whether Claimant is so entitled:

a) a Guardian ad-litem,

b) a court-appointed Guardian,

c) a court-appointed Conservator, and

d) an attorney hired to facilitate the appointment of the Guardian and Conservator in District Court; and

2. Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether the fees and costs charged by any or all of these people, if compensable, are reasonable.

         CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          The parties agree that Claimant suffered a compensable accident. He suffered a catastrophic head injury when he fell from a ladder. He is totally and permanently disabled and will require attendant care for life. The Magistrate Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho appointed a guardian and conservator on his behalf because of the extent of the head injury. Those court proceedings required an attorney and a guardian ad-litem as well. (Hereinafter, these four are collectively "the Group.")          Claimant contends a treating physician has opined that appointment of a guardian and conservator is medically necessary as a result of Claimant's compensable accident and injury. Claimant requires constant attendant care for activities of daily living. Generally, the Commission has jurisdiction to resolve all questions in dispute under Idaho Code § 72-707. Regarding attendant care as a medical benefit, Idaho Code § 72-432(3) gives the Commission jurisdiction and discretion "to determine the necessity, character and sufficiency of any medical services furnished or to be furnished." Claimant is entitled to benefits for each and all of the attendant-care providers in question. The charges claimed by each and all of the Group are reasonable.          Defendants contend the services of the guardian, conservator, guardian ad-litem, and attorney who secured these appointments on Claimant's behalf do not constitute attendance or attendant care under the relevant statutes. Such services are not medical care. They do not comport with the definition of "medical services." The Legislature did not include members of the Group within the Idaho Workers' Compensation Law and the jurisdiction and authority of the Commission. Idaho Code § 72-432 does not grant it. While the Commission has jurisdiction to interpret Idaho Code § 72-432, it does not have power to order Surety to pay the fees of the Group. Rules of statutory construction require this result. The guardian and conservator were appointed by an Ada County Magistrate pursuant to appropriate sections of the Uniform Probate Code, Title 15, Idaho Code. This gives the Magistrate "exclusive and continuing jurisdiction" over members of the Group. Idaho has not ruled on the question at issue, but other states have held that such services are outside their workers' compensation laws. Claimant improperly relies upon Idaho cases which are distinguishable from the facts here. Surety has paid and continues to pay all medical and disability benefits due Claimant. In addition to all other medical and disability benefits, Surety pays the services of an attendant, Isobel Hernandez, at a rate of $3,200 per month. None of the Group provides medical services or direct attendant care to Claimant as those terms are defined by Idaho law.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in the instant case included the following:

1. Oral testimony at hearing of attorney Robert Aldridge, Drew Mayes on behalf of Claimant's guardian Castle Rock Services, Paul Seideman on behalf of Claimant's conservator Tresco of Idaho, Isobel Hernandez who provides the certified family home where Claimant resides, and Surety senior claims examiner Donna Young;

2. Claimant's exhibits A through K; and

3. Defendants' exhibits 1 through 22.

         FINDINGS OF FACT          1. Claimant is totally and permanently disabled after a head injury...