Escutia v. Obendorf Hops, Inc., 031820 IDWC, IC 2012-011436

Case DateMarch 18, 2020
CourtIdaho
VENTURA ESCUTIA, Claimant,
v.
OBENDORF HOPS, INC., Employer,
and
IDAHO STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety,
and
STATE OF IDAHO, INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, Defendants.
No. IC 2012-011436
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
March 18, 2020
         ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION           Thomas P. Baskin, Chairman.          On January 14, 2020, pursuant to Idaho Industrial Judicial Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 3(G) and Idaho Code §72-718, Defendant, State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF), filed a Motion to Reconsider the Industrial Commission’s (“Commission”) January 9, 2020, Order Retaining Case on Active Calendar (“Order”) in the above-captioned matter. On January 16, 2020, Defendants Employer and Surety filed Notice of Concurrence in ISIF’s Motion to Reconsider. In the January 16, 2020 Order, Referee John C. Hummel found good cause for retaining the case on Claimants behalf. On reconsideration, ISIF argues that Claimant failed to show cause because an explanation for the lack of action was not offered.          A decision of the Commission, in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive as to all matters adjudicated, provided that within twenty days from the date of filing the decision, any party may move for reconsideration. Idaho Code § 72-718. A motion for reconsideration must “present to the Commission new reasons factually and legally to support [reconsideration] rather than rehashing evidence previously presented.” Curtis v. M.H. King Co., 142 Idaho 383, 128 P.3d 920 (2005). The Commission is not inclined to reweigh evidence and arguments simply because the case was not resolved in the party’s favor.          On reconsideration, the Commission will examine the evidence in the case and determine whether the evidence presented supports the legal conclusions in the decision. However, the Commission is not compelled to make findings of fact during reconsideration. Davidson v. H.H. Keim, 110 Idaho 758, 718 P.2d 1196 (1986).          As noted by ISIF, this claim arises from an accident of April 27, 2012. The case has been subject to previous notices of intent to recommend dismissal pursuant to JRP 12, in addition to the notice filed December 10, 2019. Moreover, the case has been set for hearing on four separate occasions...

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