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...