Hulse v. Idaho State Liquor Dispensa, 012015 IDWC, IC 2012-013397

Case DateJanuary 20, 2015
CourtIdaho
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...

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