GARY DAVIS, Claimant, Petitioner herein,
v.
HAMMACK MANAGEMENT INC., Employer,
and
STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety,
and
STATE OF IDAHO, INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, Respondents herein.
Nos. IC 15-000107, 2005-501080
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
October 6, 2015
ORDER ON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING
R. D.
Maynard, Chairman
On
February 26, 2015, Petitioner filed his Petition for
declaratory ruling with supporting memorandum. Petitioner
requests a ruling on the impact of Corgatelli v. Steel
West, Inc., 157 Idaho 287, 335 P.3d 1150 (2014) on the
parties' lump sum settlement agreement (LSSA), approved
by order of the Commission dated June 26, 2014. Petitioner
argues that Corgatelli, supra, renders the PPI
credit in the LSSA invalid, and without Commission
intervention, the present LSSA improperly denies Petitioner
the full measure of his statutory total permanent disability
benefits, unfairly relieves Employer/Surety (Employer) and
the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) of their
respective obligations to pay Petitioner total permanent
disability benefits, unfairly requires Petitioner to waive
his full statutory total permanent disability benefits, and
adversely affects the timing of ISIF's total permanent
disability payments. Petitioner also wishes the Commission to
evaluate the LSSA for ambiguity, and to order the payment of
attorney's fees by Employer and ISIF because they have
contested Petitioner's request for the "full
measure" of his TPD benefits.
On
March 11, 2015, Employer filed an objection to
Petitioner's request. Employer argues that
Petitioner's proposed issues are not proper for a
declaratory ruling, because Petitioner's petition is an
attempt to retroactively apply Corgatelli,
supra, to the June 26, 2014 LSSA, which was
dismissed with prejudice. Employer argues that the
reconsideration and appeal time has passed, thus the LSSA is
final and no actual controversy exists. Employer also
challenges Petitioner's service of the petition for
declaratory ruling.
On
March 12, 2015, ISIF filed a limited appearance to challenge
the subject matter jurisdiction and service of process.
On
March 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a reply brief. Petitioner
objects to the ISIF's arguments, and contends that the
Commission has jurisdiction to consider his petition for
declaratory ruling.
Petitioner
Properly Served Respondents
ISIF
and Employer argue that Petitioner improperly served them
because their respective legal counsel no longer represented
them after the negotiated LSSA. However, neither counsel for
the ISIF nor Employer complied with Commission rules treating
the withdrawal as counsel of record under J.R.P. 14. The
Commission finds that Petitioner properly served his request
for declaratory ruling.
The
Impact of Corgatelli on the Previously Approved
LSSA
Judicial
Rules of Practice and Procedure under the Idaho Workers'
Compensation Law (JRP) 15(c) (May 8, 2013) describes by whom,
and for what, a petition for declaratory ruling may be filed:
J.R.P.
15(c). Contents of Petition.
Whenever
any person has an actual controversy over the construction,
validity or applicability of a statute, rule, or order, that
person may file a written petition with the Commission,
subject to the following requirements:
1. The petitioner must expressly seek a declaratory ruling
and must identify the statute, rule, or order on which a
ruling is requested and state the issue or issues to be
decided;
2. The petitioner must allege that an actual controversy
exists over the construction, validity or applicability of
the statute, rule, or order and must state with specificity
the nature of the controversy;
3. The petitioner must have an interest which is directly
affected by the statute, rule, or order in which a ruling is
requested and must plainly state that interest in the
petition; and
4. The petition shall be accompanied by a memorandum setting
forth all relevant facts and law in support thereof.
The
Commission may decline to make a ruling where it lacks
jurisdiction over the issue presented or where there is other
good cause why a ruling should not be made. J.R.P.15(f).
Here,
it is clear that Petitioner qualifies as a "person"
as defined in the rule. Petitioner alleges the existence of
an "actual controversy" over the validity of an
Order of the Commission, i.e., the LSSA approved by order of
the Commission dated June 26, 2014. Petitioner contends that
in view of Corgatelli, supra, the
"credit" given in the LSSA for the payment of a
prior impairment rating is illegal. Employer and the ISIF
assert that the LSSA is legal, binding, and not subject to
further review by the Commission. Assuming that the
Commission has continuing jurisdiction over the LSSA, an
"actual controversy" between Petitioner and the
other parties to the LSSA appears to exist since Petitioner
may net a larger recovery depending on how the controversy is
resolved.
The
LSSA at issue in this matter was approved by the Commission
on June 26, 2014 pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code
§ 72-404, which provides:
Whenever the commission determines that it is for the best
interest of all parties, the liability of the employer for
compensation may, on application to the commission by any
party interested, be discharged in whole or in part by the
payment of one or more lump sums to be determined, with the
approval of the commission.
Idaho Code § 72-404.
LSSAs
are agreements of both compromise and commutation. The LSSA
approved by the Commission contains both of these elements.
The LSSA reflects that Petitioner suffered the subject work
accident on November 9, 2004. This accident caused injury to
Petitioner's lumbar spine. Petitioner suffered from a
number of pre-existing conditions involving his lumbar and
cervical spine. In fact, prior to November...
