MARK B. HUTCHINS, Petitioner,
v.
FINKE LOGGING, Employer,
and
ASSOCIATED LOGGERS EXCHANGE, Surety, Respondents.
No. IC 2015-012656
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
January 25, 2019
ORDER ON DECLARATORY RELIEF
Thomas
P. Baskin, Chairman.
On or
about February 7, 2017, Claimant Mark B. Hutchins,
(“Petitioner” herein), filed his Motion to Strike
and/or Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by
Employer/Surety (“Respondents” herein).
Petitioner requested that the Commission consider his motion
and supporting brief as a request for declaratory ruling
pursuant to JRP 15 in the event that the Commission declined
to strike/dismiss Respondents’ Complaint. As developed
infra, the Referee assigned to the case declined to
dismiss/strike the Complaint filed by Respondents, and
accordingly, the matter is before the Commission on
Claimant’s Petition for Declaratory Relief pursuant to
Rule 15, JRP.
The
dispute which Petitioner seeks to resolve is whether Idaho
law allows Respondents to pursue their own Complaint to
resolve Petitioner’s entitlement to disability payable
under the workers’ compensation laws of this state.
Petitioner argues that Respondents are barred from pursuing
their Complaint under Idaho Code § 72-706 and JRP 3. In
response, Respondents assert that any party to a controversy
arising under these laws may file a complaint. Respondents
argue that Petitioner has failed to articulate an actual
controversy over the “construction, validity or
applicability of a statute, rule or order” such as to
invoke the Commission’s jurisdiction under JRP 15.
Further, Respondents allege that Petitioner has not complied
with the specific provisions of JRP 15, which require the
filing of a contemporaneous memorandum in support of the
petition for relief. (See JRP 15(C)(4)). In reply, Petitioner
argues that his petition does present an actual controversy
over the construction of Idaho Code § 72-706 and JRP 3.
Petitioner also asserts that he satisfied the provisions of
JRP 15(c)(4) with the filing of his original February 9, 2017
Objection, Motion to Strike and/or Motion to Dismiss, in
which he raised JRP 15 as an alternate means to obtain the
relief he sought.
FACTS
1. On
or about May 14, 2015, Petitioner suffered a compensable
accident/injury. Medical benefits and income benefits owed
during Petitioner’s recovery were paid. However, the
permanent impact of the accident on Petitioner’s
ability to engage in gainful activity may be disputed by the
parties. Petitioner may or may not contend that he is totally
and permanently disabled.
2. In
September of 2016, Petitioner was assigned a 56% whole person
impairment rating for the subject injury. This rating is
payable over a period of 280 weeks (500 x 56%) from September
of 2016 through early 2022 at $378.95 per week, totaling
$106,106.00.
[1] Respondents are in the process of
paying this rating.
3. On
or about January 27, 2017, Respondents filed their Complaint
with the Commission, acknowledging the subject accident, as
well as Petitioner’s entitlement to medical and TTD
benefits during his period of recovery. PPI benefits valued
at $4,547.40 had been paid as of the date of filing. The
Complaint described issues for resolution as follows:
This is an accepted claim for which benefits have been paid
as accrued. Respondents are paying PPI and want to proceed to
hearing ASAP to determine the extent of Claimant’s
permanent disability. Claimant has declined to file a
complaint and IIC instructed Respondents to file a complaint
so that a hearing may be requested.
4. On
or about February 7, 2017, Petitioner filed his Objection,
Motion to Strike and/or Motion to Dismiss Respondents’
Complaint. Respondents responded on February 10, 2017, and
Petitioner filed his reply on or about February 21, 2017. No
action was taken on Petitioner’s motion until November
6, 2018 when, by Order of that date, the Referee denied
Petitioner’s motion, reasoning that nothing in the
statutory or regulatory scheme could be said to prevent an
aggrieved Defendant from filing a complaint for relief with
the Commission. Following this Order, Petitioner requested
that the Commission entertain essentially the same arguments
in support of a Petition for Declaratory Relief under JRP 15.
ISSUE
Does
the statutory/regulatory scheme authorize Respondents to file
a complaint for the purpose of assessing Petitioner’s
disability sooner, rather than later, in order to attenuate a
perceived risk of double payment contemplated by
Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc., 157 Idaho 287, 335
P.3d 1150 (2014)?
DISCUSSION
We must
first consider whether Petitioner’s February 9, 2017
Motion to Strike and/or Motion to Dismiss articulates a basis
upon which relief may be granted pursuant to JRP 15. Pursuant
to that rule, Petitioner may file a request for declaratory
ruling when he has an “actual controversy over the
construction, validity or applicability of a statute, rule or
order.” The main thrust of Petitioner’s motion is
that neither Idaho Code § 72-706 nor JRP 3 contemplate
the filing of a complaint by any entity other than an injured
worker. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has
identified a statute or rule on which a ruling is requested
with sufficient specificity. Pursuant to JRP 15(C)(2)
Petitioner must also demonstrate that an actual controversy
exists over the construction of the statute or rule in
question. We believe that this requirement, too, is satisfied
by the pleadings before us. Respondents assert that any party
to a controversy arising under these laws may file a
complaint; Petitioner takes the position that only
injured workers may file a complaint with the Commission.
Pursuant
to JRP 15(C)(3), Petitioner must also have an interest that
is directly affected by the statute or rule in question and
“must plainly state” that interest in the
petition. The Commission questions whether Petitioner
“plainly” identified his interest in this
dispute, at least in his original filing. To be sure,
Petitioner identified a number of reasons why the complaint
cannot proceed, but his purpose in preventing...
