JUDY M. HULSE, Claimant,
v.
IDAHO STATE LIQUOR DISPENSARY, Employer,
and
IDAHO STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, Defendants.
Nos. IC 2008-000306, IC 2012-013397
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
May 1, 2015
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
RECOMMENDATION
R.D.
Maynard, Chairman
INTRODUCTION
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pursuant
to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission
assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee Brian Harper,
who conducted a hearing in Boise, Idaho, on July 22, 2014.
Claimant was represented by Richard S. Owen of Nampa. Bridget
A. Vaughan, of Boise, represented Idaho State Liquor
Dispensary, ("Employer"), and State Insurance Fund,
("Surety"), Defendants
1. Oral and documentary
evidence was admitted. No post-hearing depositions were
taken. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs. The matter
originally came under advisement on October 27, 2014. The
Findings of Fact and corresponding Order were filed and
promulgated on or about November 7, 2014.
Claimant
subsequently moved for Reconsideration of the decision. On
January 20, 2015, the Commission granted Claimant's
Motion for Reconsideration and remanded the matter to the
undersigned Referee. The parties were given the opportunity
to obtain additional expert testimony, particularly with
regard to causation. The parties declined to submit
additional testimony or exhibits, instead relying on the
previously-admitted exhibits. The parties were given the
opportunity to submit briefing on the issue of medical
causation, and did so. The remanded matter came under
advisement on April 21, 2015.
ISSUES
As
clarified in Claimant's Motion to Reconsider, the issues
to be decided are;
1.
Whether Claimant suffered an accident as fully defined by
I.C. § 72-102(18)(b); and
2.
Whether Defendants had sufficient knowledge of Claimant's
alleged injury in a timely manner, as set out in I.C. §
72-704, so as to preclude their lack-of-notice defense under
I.C. §§ 72-701 through 703.
All
other issues are reserved.
CONTENTIONS
OF THE PARTIES
Claimant
asserts that on March 16, 2012, while in the course of her
employment, she injured her low back lifting a heavy box full
of liquor bottles. While Claimant acknowledges she was having
low back issues prior to and at the time of this accident,
the March 16 event greatly increased her symptoms and
decreased her ability to function. Ultimately she required
back surgery due to this accident. Her pre-existing medical
condition may be a matter for future apportionment, but she
suffered a compensable injury as described above.
Claimant
further admits she did not specifically report this accident
to Employer, but it nevertheless knew of her injury, and
filed a "Form 1" within sixty days of the accident.
As such, the provisions of Idaho Code §72-704 negate
Defendants' notice arguments.
Defendants
argue Claimant has not met her burden of proving she suffered
a compensable injury from an accident arising out of and in
the course of her employment on March 16, 2012, and even if
she did suffer such injury she failed to give Employer notice
of her injury within sixty days of the event.
EVIDENCE
CONSIDERED
The
record in this matter consists of the following:
1. Claimant's testimony, taken at hearing;
2. Claimant's Exhibits A through H, admitted at hearing;
3. Defendants' Exhibits 1 through 6, admitted at hearing.
Having
considered the evidence and briefing by the parties, the
Referee submits the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law for review by the Commission.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Work
History and Injury
1.
Claimant was at the time of hearing a 72 year old married
woman, living in Nampa with her husband. She has a GED and no
further formal education.
2.
Claimant began working for Employer as a permanent employee
in 2002. Her duties included janitorial and cleaning,
stocking product, taking bar orders, helping customers,
receiving freight, and running the registers. Her shifts
varied, and could be as long as eleven hours.
3. In
late December 2007, Claimant injured her left knee while
working for Employer. That injury is not the subject of the
present proceeding, although it is one of the consolidated
cases listed above.
4.
Claimant alleges she injured her low back while in the course
and arising out of her employment on March 16, 2012. It is
this injury which is the focus of discussion herein.
5.
Claimant testified she was lifting and stacking cases of
Crown Royal in the late afternoon or early evening of March
16, 2012 when she felt a pain, like her low back was
"imploding." The pain, which she described as
"like a fire", was centered in her lower back, her
groin, and down her right leg to her ankle. Tr. pp.
32-33.
6.
Claimant did not drop the case she was carrying, but she did
immediately stop stocking liquor for the rest of her shift.
She testified she was working alone at the time of this
incident; she was able to complete her shift and close the
store.
7. The
following day Claimant went to work. Her back was not as
painful as it had been the previous evening.
8. At
some point after March 16, Claimant told her co-worker, Lloyd
Condron, that she had hurt herself but did not share any
details. He often helped Claimant with stocking duties
thereafter.
9.
Claimant did not tell her supervisor, Jim Tully, about the
incident of March 16, but he noticed she was having
difficulty doing her job duties and advised Claimant to see a
doctor. Believing Claimant's back issues were the result
of...
