JUDY HULSE, Claimant,
v.
IDAHO STATE LIQUOR DISPENSA Employer,
and
STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, Defendants.
Nos. IC 2012-013397, 2008-000306
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the state of Idaho
January 20, 2015
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND
VACATING ORDER OF NOVEMBER 7, 2014
R.D.
Maynard, Chairman
On
November 7, 2014, the Commission entered its Order adopting
the recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
authored by Referee Brian Harper. In that decision, the
Referee recognized that pursuant to the statutory definition,
an "accident" cannot be said to have occurred until
Claimant demonstrates the occurrence of an untoward mishap or
event which produces injury to the physical structure of her
body. See Idaho Code § 72-102(18)(b). In other words,
merely demonstrating the occurrence of an untoward mishap or
event, without proof of a concomitant injury, is insufficient
to prove the occurrence of an "accident."
However,
quite apart from the technical requirements of the statutory
definition, it is quite common for even experienced
workers' compensation practitioners to treat the
"accident" as the untoward mishap or event, and the
"injury" as the damage to the body caused by the
accident. The disconnect between this common (though possibly
sloppy) usage, and the technical requirements of the statute
may explain the current dilemma.
In the
underlying decision, Referee Harper relied on the statutory
definition of "accident" to conclude that because
Claimant put on no proof to demonstrate that her claimed
mishap of March 16, 2012, caused damage to the physical
structure of her body, the inquiry stopped there. It makes no
difference whether there was an untoward mishap of March 16,
2012, if Claimant cannot also prove that an injury resulted
from that mishap. The claim was denied. The Referee did not
reach the issues of timeliness of notice, and did not even
address whether an untoward mishap or event had occurred as
claimed, because the claim failed due to lack of proof that
the claimed mishap produced an injury.
From
this Decision, Claimant has filed a timely motion for
reconsideration under Idaho Code § 72-718. Claimant
argues that the issue for hearing was limited to whether or
not there was an untoward mishap or event which could be
reasonably located as to time when and place where it
occurred. Specifically, Claimant asserts that the issue of
whether or not the claimed mishap/event caused an injury was
deferred, and by agreement of the parties, was not at issue
at the subject hearing...