JOSEPH JERRY MARAVILLA, Petitioner,
v.
J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, Self-Insured Employer, Respondent.
Nos. IC 15-000108, 2011-025160
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
August 11, 2015
ORDER ON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING
R.D.
Maynard, Chairman
Joseph
Maravilla (Petitioner) filed his Petition for Declaratory
Ruling (Petition) with the Commission on May 1, 2015. The
Petition was served on J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot),
Respondent herein, who employed Petitioner at the time of the
industrial accident giving rise to this matter. Petitioner
raised a number of issues in his Petition, which he contended
were the proper subject of a J.R.P. 15 Petition for
Declaratory Ruling. However, following a telephone conference
with the parties, the Commission has determined that only two
of the issues identified by the parties are properly the
subject of a petition for declaratory ruling. The facts
relevant to the instant dispute can be synopsized as follows:
FACTS
1. At
all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was employed by
Simplot, at its Pocatello facility.
2. At
some point in time prior to October 16, 2011, Simplot entered
into an agreement with Idaho Industrial Contractors, Inc.
(IIC), pursuant to the terms of which IIC performed certain
repairs on a sulfuric acid pad located at the Simplot
facility. Part of this work involved the removal of existing
stair landings in the vicinity of the acid pad. Because of
the construction, Simplot placed a hose across a walkway to
transport water/acid mix to a nearby pump. On the day of the
accident giving rise to the underlying claim, a rain event
caused a power surge which led to the buildup of water and
acid in the acid pad. On October 16, 2011, Petitioner tripped
on the walkway hose. His foot went through a plastic barrier
erected by IIC, and into a quantity of sulfuric acid.
Petitioner suffered chemical burns to his right leg, which
later required skin grafts and surgery. It is alleged by
Petitioner that the accident occurred as a result of the
negligence of Simplot and IIC.
3. A
workers' compensation claim was filed by Petitioner. A
timely complaint was filed on September 24, 2012. The
underlying claim (2011-025160) is an accepted claim, and
workers' compensation benefits have been paid by Simplot
in its capacity as a self-insured employer. The total amount
of workers' compensation benefits paid to date by Simplot
is unknown. Petitioner's entitlement to workers'
compensation benefits in addition to those paid to date is
the subject of a hearing before the Commission in the
underlying action scheduled for October 7, 2015.
4. At
some point following the subject accident, Petitioner filed
his lawsuit against IIC in district court, as allowed by
Idaho Code § 72-223, alleging, inter alia, that
his injuries were occasioned as a result of the negligence of
IIC. Simplot did not participate in that litigation. At some
point prior to trial, Petitioner and IIC resolved
Petitioner's claim against IIC by IIC's agreement to
pay a settlement in the amount of $75,000.00. As a result of
the settlement, Judge Nye entered his order dismissing the
complaint with prejudice on January 22, 2015.
5.
Against the $75,000.00 settlement reached in the litigation
against IIC, Simplot claims that it has a right of
subrogation pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-223. Simplot
contends that its right of subrogation exists even if it is
shown to have been partly at fault in contributing to
Claimant's injuries. On the other hand, Petitioner
contends that any negligence on the part of Simplot
cuts off its right to subrogation under Idaho Code §
72-223.
6. With
this background, the following issues are before the
Commission for declaratory ruling:
ISSUES
1. How,
if at all, did the abolition of the doctrine of joint and
several liability in 1987 affect the historic rule that any
amount of employer negligence is an absolute bar to the
employer's right of subrogation under Idaho Code §
72-223?
2.
Where a settlement has been reached in a third-party action
without a judicial determination of how fault should be
apportioned between employer, claimant and a third-party,
does the Industrial Commission have subject matter
jurisdiction to determine the relative fault of the parties
in determining employer's Idaho Code § 72-223 right
of subrogation?
DISCUSSION
I.
Pursuant
to JRP 15, the Commission may entertain a petition for
declaratory ruling where it is demonstrated that an
"actual controversy" exists over the construction
of a statute which directly affects the interests of the
Petitioner. Prior to the 1987 amendment of Idaho Code §
6-803, Idaho case law was well-developed concerning how
responsibility for damages should be apportioned between a
third-party, an employer and an injured worker in an action
brought under Idaho Code § 72-223. However, both parties
acknowledge that the legislature's abolition of the
doctrine of joint and several liability in 1987 casts some
doubt on the continued validity of the rules developed in
Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Products, Inc., 107 Idaho
389, 690 P.2d 324 (1984); Tucker v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 100 Idaho 590, 603 P.2d 156 (1979);
Schneider v. Farmers Merchant, Inc., 106 Idaho 241,
678 P.2d 33 (1984), Barnett v. Eagle Helicopters,
Inc., 123 Idaho 361, 848 P.2d 419 (1993), and other
cases. Strange as it seems, the policies and principles
guiding apportionment in such cases have not been readdressed
by the Court at any time since 1987.1
7.
Whether the rule announced in Schneider, Runcorn and
Tucker must be amended following the abolition of joint
and several liability is an issue that is controverted by the
parties, and one which will impact their rights and
responsibilities in connection with Simplot's assertion
of a right of subrogation under Idaho Code § 72-223. We
believe that this is an appropriate subject for a Petition
for Declaratory Ruling under J.R.P. 15, and we also believe
that addressing the matter in this vehicle, rather than in
connection with the underlying workers' compensation
claim, will assist both the parties and the Commission; as
Petitioner has pointed out, absent guidance from the
Commission at this juncture, the parties must be prepared to
put on proof to address all possible outcomes of the legal
issues referenced above. Knowing in advance what rule the
Commission will apply to the subrogation issue will
streamline proceedings and proof when the underlying matter
eventually goes to hearing in October. Moreover, the
Commission recognizes that this is an issue of some import,
and that it is very likely that the party aggrieved by this
decision will desire an immediate review by the Supreme
Court. Addressing the issue in connection with a J.R.P. 15
Petition for Declaratory Ruling, as opposed to treating it
separately as a bifurcated issue in the related case, will
allow such review, without the necessity of trying the
balance of the case before appeal could be taken.
8. The
Workers' Compensation Laws of Idaho (Act) provide the
exclusive remedy for injuries sustained as a result of a work
accident. Our statutory scheme is a shield as well as a
sword. While the Act guarantees compensation to an injured
worker regardless of fault, it also limits the employer's
liability. See Idaho Code § 72-209. However,
this exclusivity is subject to the provisions of Idaho Code
§ 72-223, which specifies that an injured worker may
receive workers' compensation benefits and thereafter
bring a negligence action against a third-party tortfeasor
who is responsible for the injured worker's injuries. The
remedies afforded to the injured worker under the provisions
of Idaho Code § 72-209 and Idaho Code § 72-223 are
cumulative. See Schneider v. Farmers Merchant, Inc.,
supra. Because these remedies...
