Clark v. Agricultural Products Corp., 012420 IDWC, IC 1974-094714

• Case Date: January 24, 2020
• Court: Idaho

BOB D. CLARK, Claimant, v. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CORP, Employer, and ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, successor to AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Surety, Defendants. No. IC 1974-094714 Idaho Workers Compensation Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho January 24, 2020          ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION           Thomas P. Baskin, Chairman          On or about November 25, 2019, the Commission entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order following hearing held August 1-2, 2018 in Pocatello. Claimant filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-718. He raises two arguments in support of his Motion:

(1) While the Commission recognized that Claimant may now require “in-home skilled nursing care,” to be provided by registered or licensed practical nurses, it erroneously concluded that Defendants were providing “24-hour skilled nursing services” to Claimant as of the date of hearing.

(2) Claimant is entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $857,279.14, representing “professional” expenditures made by Claimant from the in-home nonprofessional care and aid annuity between 1992 and 2011.

         In response, Defendants contend that 24-hour skilled nursing care has never been provided to Claimant, and that Claimant has failed to adduce any proof, either in the case-in-chief or in the Motion for Reconsideration, which warrants finding that Claimant is entitled to 24/7 skilled nursing care. Next, Defendants argue that the care for which Claimant seeks reimbursement is “nonprofessional” care which was appropriately the responsibility of Claimant, at least up to the amount of the monthly in-home nonprofessional care and aid annuity. Finally, Defendants contend that the claim for reimbursement for professional care paid from the in-home nonprofessional care and aid annuity for the period 1992 through 2011 is barred by the applicable statute of limitation.          A decision of the Commission, in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive as to all matters adjudicated, provided that within 20 days from the date of the filing of the decision, any party may move for reconsideration. Idaho Code § 72-718. However, “[i]t is axiomatic that a claimant must present to the Commission new reasons factually and legally to support a hearing on her Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration rather than rehashing evidence previously presented.” Curtis v. M.H. King Co., 142 Idaho 383, 388, 128 P.3d 920 (2005).          On reconsideration, the Commission will examine the evidence in the case and determine whether the evidence presented supports the legal conclusions. The Commission is not compelled to make findings on the facts of the case during reconsideration. Davidson v. H.H. Keim Co., Ltd., 110 Idaho 758, 718 P.2d 1196 (1986). The Commission may reverse its decision upon a motion for reconsideration, or rehear the decision in question, based on the arguments presented, or upon its own motion, provided that it acts within the time frame established in Idaho Code § 72-718. See, Dennis v. School District No. 91, 135 Idaho 94, 15 P.3d 329 (2000) (citing Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284, 756 P.2d 410 (1988)). A motion for reconsideration must be properly supported by a recitation of the factual findings and/or legal conclusions with which the moving party takes issue. However, the Commission is not inclined to re-weigh evidence and arguments during reconsideration simply because the case was not resolved in a party’s favor.          I.          At Page 32 of the November 25, 2019 decision, the Commission stated:

The Commission acknowledges that Claimant may require in-home skilled nursing care, to be provided by registered or licensed practical nurses. As of the date of hearing, it appears that this level of care may now be necessary. Care provided by such individuals is clearly “professional” within the meaning of the agreement since it requires advanced education/training.

(Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order at p.32). Later in the decision, the Commission offered an observation about the nature of the in-home care that had been provided by Defendants prior to the interruption of care which led to Claimant’s August 12, 2019 request for emergency hearing. At Page 59 of the decision the Commission stated:

Claimant argues that Defendants have not provided recommended care, specifically 24-hour skilled nursing services and adaptive home controls. The Commission believes Defendants had been providing 24-hour skilled nursing services until a recent interruption that was resolved following a request for emergency hearing.

Id. at 59. Claimant invites the Commission to order Defendants to pay for 24/7 skilled, or “professional” nursing care. Claimant argues that he has never...