Davis v. Hammack Management Inc., 112515 IDWC, IC 15-000107

Case DateNovember 25, 2015
CourtIdaho
GARY DAVIS, Claimant, Petitioner herein,
v.
HAMMACK MANAGEMENT INC., Employer,
and
TATE 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
November 25, 2015
          ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION           R.D. Maynard, Chairman.          On October 6, 2015, the Commission entered its Order on Petition for Declaratory Ruling. On October 23, 2015, Petitioner filed his timely motion for reconsideration, with supporting memoranda. Defendants Employer/Surety and ISIF filed timely responses. For the reasons set forth in more detail below, the Commission declines to reconsider its October 6, 2015 Order.          In its October 6, 2015 Decision, the Commission observed that while the provisions of Idaho Code § 72-719 do afford limited opportunities to re-visit an award of the Commission, that section was not relevant to resolution of the instant matter since the provisions of Idaho Code § 72-719 do not apply where there has been a settlement pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code § 72-404. (See Idaho Code § 72-719(4)). Idaho Code § 72-404 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.
         Such agreements, commonly referred to as lump sum settlement agreements, contemplate the compromise of a claim by the payment of "one or more lump sums". Here, the agreement at issue does not contemplate the payment of one or more lump sums in compromise of Defendants' liability. Rather, the agreement contemplates the payment of all benefits to which Claimant would be entitled as though adjudged permanently and totally disabled by the Commission. The issue resolved by the agreement was not whether Claimant is totally and permanently disabled, and not whether the ISIF bears some responsibility for 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