Stanley v. State, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 021020 IDWC, IC 2013-016787

Case DateFebruary 10, 2020
CourtIdaho
CURTIS STANLEY, Claimant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, Defendants.
No. IC 2013-016787
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
February 10, 2020
         FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER           Thomas P. Baskin, Chairman.          INTRODUCTION          On July 3, 2018, Claimant, Curtis Stanley, filed his Complaint in the above entitled matter through attorney, Andrew A. Adams, of Idaho Falls. On July 16, 2018, Defendant State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF), filed its Answer through attorney Paul J. Augustine, of Boise. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission assigned the matter to Referee Alan Taylor. The undersigned Commissioners have chosen not to adopt the Referee’s recommendation and hereby issue their own findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.          On September 11, 2019, ISIF filed a Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Bifurcate with supporting memorandum seeking dismissal of the Complaint or an order bifurcating the issue of the statute of limitations for determination by the Commission prior to hearing. On September 26, 2019, Claimant filed a response objecting to dismissal and disputing ISIF’s statute of limitations defense.          On November 4, 2019, a telephone conference was held during which the parties agreed to submit the issue of the statute of limitations on a stipulation of facts with briefing for determination by the Commission. The Referee assigned to this matter issued an Order Bifurcating Issues on November 6, 2019.          On December 5, 2019, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts with attached exhibits on the issue of the statute of limitations. On December 10, 2019, ISIF filed its Memorandum Regarding Statutes of Limitations. On January 3, 2020, Claimant filed his Brief. The matter came under advisement on January 9, 2020.          ISSUE          The issue to be decided is whether the Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Idaho Code § 72-706.          CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          ISIF contends that Idaho Code § 72-706 applies to claims against ISIF and that Claimant’s Complaint is barred by Idaho Code §§ 72-706(2) and (3). Claimant maintains that his Complaint against ISIF is timely because the Commission approved a settlement with Claimant’s time of injury employer and its surety, expressly retaining jurisdiction of future medical benefits. Claimant therefore asserts the Commission still has jurisdiction of the case.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in this matter consists of the following:
1. The Industrial Commission legal file;
2. The parties’ Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits A through F.
         FINDINGS OF FACT          1. On June 24, 2013, while employed by Valley Wide Co-Op (Employer), Claimant, Curtis Stanley, suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.          2. As a result of his June 24, 2013 accident, Claimant suffered an injury to his left shoulder and low back.          3. Claimant gave timely notice to his Employer and its Surety, the Idaho State Insurance Fund (SIF) of his accident.          4. At the time of his injury, Claimant was 52 years of age and his average weekly wage was $760.20.          5. As a result of his June 24, 2013 accident, the SIF paid Claimant TTD and TPD benefits from July 20, 2013 through September 23, 2015 in the amount of $52,663.54.          6. On September 2, 2015, Robert Friedman, M.D., found Claimant was at maximum medical improvement and rated Claimant's permanent partial impairment of his lumbar spine at 6% of the whole person of which 100% was due to Claimant's pre-existing conditions and 2% of the upper extremity for his left shoulder injury which was not apportioned.          7. The SIF paid Claimant 2% of the upper extremity permanent and partial impairment for a total of $2,224.20.          8. On October 19, 2015, Claimant filed his Complaint against Employer/Surety seeking additional workers’ compensation benefits.          9. In May 2017, Claimant, Employer, and SIF entered into a Modified Lump Sum Agreement whereby the SIF agreed to pay Claimant an additional $40,000 for disputed past medical and disability benefits. Claimant, Employer, and SIF agreed to keep medical benefits open, but disputed. Claimant, Employer, and SIF further agreed to a stipulation for dismissal of Claimant's claims with prejudice, except as to reasonable future medical benefits resulting from the accident of June 24, 2013.          10. The Modified Lump Sum Agreement was approved by the Commission on June 20, 2017. Exhibit A. The Industrial Commission ordered that Claimant's case, IC. No. 2013-016787, be dismissed with prejudice except regarding future medical benefits pursuant to the Stipulation to Dismiss and Order of Dismissal. Exhibit B.          11. Following the entry of the orders by the Industrial Commission on June 21, 2017, the SIF issued a check for indemnity benefits as required by the Modified Lump Sum Agreement. Claimant cashed the SIF's check on June 28, 2017.          12. On May 17, 2018, Claimant underwent a left reverse total shoulder arthroplasty...

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