Bonner General Hospital, Inc. v. Pincenti, 082415 IDWC, IC 2010-031621

Case DateAugust 24, 2015
CourtIdaho
BONNER GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., Employer,
and
LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CORP., Surety, Defendants/Petitioners.
v.
ROSE R. PINCENTI, Claimant/Respondent.
No. IC 2010-031621
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the state of Idaho
August 24, 2015
          ORDER DECLINING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING           R.D. Maynard, Chairman          On July 1, 2015, Defendants (Petitioners herein) filed a request for a declaratory ruling. Petitioners seek a declaratory ruling on the validity of Referee Donohue's March 24, 2015 Order Granting Claimant's Request for a Protective Order (Order) in this case. Petitioners argue that they previously scheduled an IME in this matter, but the Referee granted Claimant's motion for a protective order. Petitioners argue that the Referee improperly shifted the burden of proof when granting Claimant the protective order, and based the ruling on factual errors. Petitioners contend that they have a strong interest in securing an IME. Petitioners state that the issue to be decided is whether Petitioners are entitled to conduct an Independent Medical Exam (IME) under Idaho Code § 72-433.          On July 13, 2015, Claimant (Respondent herein) objected to the request for declaratory ruling. Respondent argues that Petitioners are attempting to take a second bite out of the apple to avoid complying with the Commission's August 2014 Order granting Respondent medical care. Respondent also argues that the March 24, 2015 Protective Order was not the subject of a motion for reconsideration and became a final decision pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-718. Respondent contends that the Referee applied the appropriate burden of proof, and disputes the alleged factual errors.          JRP 15, Declaratory Rulings, provides a mechanism by which an interested party may apply to the Industrial Commission for rulings "on the construction, validity, or applicability of any workers' compensation statute, rule, regulation or order." (See, JRP 15(A)). The petitioner must demonstrate that an "actual controversy" exists over the construction, validity, or applicability of the rule or statute in question. (See, JRP 15(C)). The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT