Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Inclusion, Inc., Inclusion North, Inc., and Inclusion South, Inc., (collectively Inclusion) provided residential rehabilitation support services to Idahoans eligible for Medicaid. In September 2012, Inclusion filed a complaint against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), alleging IDHW breached binding Medicaid Provider Agreements by failing to adequately reimburse Inclusion for its services. In June 2013, Inclusion amended its complaint with unjust enrichment and quasi-estoppel claims. The district court granted summary judgment for IDHW, concluding no triable issue of fact supported Inclusion’s claims. IDHW then moved for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) and requested $74,925.00 in fees. The district court found that IDHW’s requested award was based on a reasonable amount of hours and a reasonable hourly rate, as determined by the Boise market. As the district court acknowledged, “the hourly rate requested is reasonable and certainly well within the rate in the marketplace in the Fourth District in Ada County, in particular.” Even so, the district court took issue with how IDHW’s requested award was not based on the actual hourly rate billed during litigation. As the district court explained, “[e]xcept where the award of attorney fees is paid to the lawyer, fees awarded to a party should not exceed the amount the client actually paid for the lawyer.” To that end, the district court multiplied 599.4 hours of work by $54.00 per hour1 to award a total of $30,857.11. IDHW moved to reconsider, but the district court upheld the award for $30,857.11. IDHW timely appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by basing the award on the amount billed by the Attorney General. The Supreme Court agreed, vacated the judgment and granted IDHW its requested award. View "Inclusion, Inc v. Id. Dept. of Health & Welfare" on Justia Law

CNW, LLC owned an office building in the Taylor’s Crossing business subdivision in Idaho Falls. In mid-June of 2012, a sinkhole developed under the parking lot of CNW’s building. It was later determined that the sinkhole was caused by water from Porter Canal infiltrating an abandoned sewer line and eroding the soil under the parking lot. Porter Canal was owned and operated by New Sweden Irrigation District (NSID); the abandoned sewer line was owned by the City of Idaho Falls (City). NSID denied responsibility for the sinkhole. CNW then served the City with a notice of tort claim. Shortly thereafter, NSID admitted that it had worked on the Porter Canal in the spring of 2012. Prior to that, NSID had repeatedly denied performing any work on the canal. CNW filed this lawsuit against NSID and the City on December 19, 2012. On January 25, 2013, CNW served NSID with an amended notice of tort claim. NSID moved for summary judgment on September 29, 2014. On December 31, 2014, the district court granted NSID’s motion for summary judgment. The district court found that CNW’s letter of October 18, 2012, was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA). The district court also found that the 180 day time limit expired before CNW served the amended notice of tort claim in January. CNW filed a motion asking the district court to reconsider the grant of summary judgment. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. CNW timely appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the district court erred in concluding one of the first notices of tort claim, delivered to NSID's secretary, satisfied the presentment requirement provided by the ITCA. View "CNW, LLC v. New Sweden Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

This case concerned a Mother’s parental rights to her two children, M.S. and I.P. Jane Doe I and John Doe I (Respondents) were the paternal great-grandparents of M.S. and I.P. Respondents started caring for M.S. and I.P. in late 2010. At that time, Respondents witnessed Mother unable to hold steady employment and a permanent residence, which forced Mother to “leav[e] [M.S. and I.P.] with people all the time.” Additionally, Father (Respondents’ grandson) had recently moved out-of-state and largely severed contact with M.S. and I.P. Respondents became concerned about the well-being of M.S and I.P. Consequently, Respondents began hosting M.S. and I.P at their home, offered to let Mother move in with them, and regularly gave Mother money to buy groceries. For reasons unclear, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) took M.S. and I.P. from Mother in January 2011 and placed M.S. and I.P. with Respondents. Respondents were awarded guardianship in April 2011 and have since cared full-time for M.S. and I.P. Mother was awarded supervised visitation in 2012, but after missing approximately 14 visits, Mother’s supervised visitation rights were terminated in 2014. A year later, her parental rights to the children were terminated. She appealed the termination, contending that the magistrate court erred in concluding she: (1) abandoned M.S. and I.P. by failing to maintain a normal parental relationship; and (2) neglected M.S. and I.P. by failing to provide proper parental care. Finding the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Re: Termination of Parental Rights" on Justia Law

Jessica Barr appealed an Idaho Industrial Commission (Commission) decision finding her ineligible for unemployment benefits and affirming the decision of an Appeals Examiner for the Idaho Department of Labor’s (IDOL) Appeals Bureau. The Commission found that Barr was discharged by her employer, Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. USA (Citicorp), for misconduct in connection with employment and determined that Barr was not eligible for benefits pursuant to Idaho Code section 72-1366(5). Barr argued that Citicorp representatives provided false information to the Appeals Examiner and her unemployment benefits should have been restored. Finding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the IDOL Appeals Examiner's decision. View "Barr v. CitiCorp Credit Svc" on Justia Law

Claimant-appellant Thomas Millard appealed the Idaho Industrial Commission’s (Commission) ruling that certain medical payments made by the Workers Compensation Fund of Utah on behalf of Millard were payable at the statutorily scheduled fee amounts rather than the full invoiced amounts. Millard argued that the Commission incorrectly applied the Idaho Supreme Court’s holding in "Neel v. Western Construction, Inc.," (206 P.3d 852 (2009)), by ruling that a surety may deny a claim then still be allowed to pay the medical fee schedule rate so long as the surety makes payment before the Commission issues a decision on compensability. Finding no reversible error in the Commission's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Millard v. ABCO Construction" on Justia Law

John Doe and Mother were the natural parents of J.M, an eight-year-old boy. John Doe and Mother had what was described as a sporadic and volatile relationship for approximately ten years. During that time, both Doe and Mother used methamphetamine and other controlled substances and committed acts of domestic violence upon each other. Mother had three children; however, this appeal dealt only with the termination of Doe’s parental rights to J.M. Doe was J.M.'s biological son. Doe appealed the magistrate court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to J.M. The magistrate court determined that it was in J.M.’s best interests to terminate Doe’s parental rights under Idaho Code sections 16-2005(1)(b) and (d) because there was clear and convincing evidence that Doe had neglected J.M pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-2002(3)(b), and/or Doe would be unable to discharge his parental responsibilities for a prolonged indeterminate period of time, which would be injurious to J.M’s health, morals, or well-being. After review of the record, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the decision to terminate parental rights and affirmed. View "Re: Termination of Parental Rights (father)" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on the legality of a Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) entered into in 2003 between the Independent Highway District (“IHD”) and the City of Sandpoint (“City”) to settle litigation between the two. The JPA provided for the City to assume control of all streets in the City and for IHD to pay over to the City all highway ad valorem taxes collected on property in the city limits. After the parties had operated under the JPA for ten years, IHD notified the City that, upon reflection, it had determined the JPA was legally void and that it would no longer pay its share of the property taxes to the City. The City filed suit against IHD for breach of contract and sought both a declaratory ruling that the JPA was valid and an order enjoining IHD from interfering with the City’s control of the streets within city limits. The district court ruled in favor of the City on summary judgment and granted attorney fees. IHD appealed. Finding that the JPA was void and unenforceable (violating Idaho Code section 67-2328), the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded this case for for the trial court to unwind the relationship between the parties. View "City of Sandpoint v. Independent Hwy Dist" on Justia Law

Jane Doe (“Mother”) appealed a magistrate court’s judgment terminating her parental rights as to her children, D.M., A.M., J.S., A.L., and R.L. She argued that the State failed to produce clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that she could parent her children. Specifically, Mother argued that: (1) the last eight months of her participation in the case plan contravene a finding of neglect; and (2) the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW”) failed to help reunify the family. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "H&W v. Jane Doe (2016-11)" on Justia Law

Jane Doe I (Mother) and John Doe I (Father) each appealed the magistrate court’s judgment terminating their parental rights as to their two minor children, L.W. and J.W. Mother argued the magistrate court erred in several respects, including that it wrongfully terminated her parental rights because the State’s petition for termination was not filed in accordance with Idaho law and because the children had not been in Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) custody for a mandatory period of fifteen months before the petition was filed. Mother also argued that the magistrate erred in finding that the children were neglected; that it was in the Mother’s best interests to have her parental rights terminated; and that Mother was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities. Father incorporated Mother’s arguments on appeal into his own appeal, and added that the court erred in determining that Father was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe / John Doe" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a decision of the Industrial Commission (the Commission) finding that Edward Jordan failed to prove entitlement to additional benefits for accidents that occurred during his employment. Jordan served over twenty-one years in the Navy, retiring in 2003. While in the Navy, Jordan was never assessed with a service-related disability involving his cervical area.1 After retiring from the Navy, Jordan and his wife moved to Boise, and he started working for Dean Foods as a milk delivery driver. On May 16, 2006, Jordan suffered an injury while trying to move a stack of milk containers (the 2006 accident). Jordan testified he experienced a sudden onset of pain in his neck and shoulders along with numbness extending down his arms. He notified a supervisor after he dropped a gallon of milk due to the numbness. Jordan sought treatment for neck, cervical, and radiculopathy symptoms. Jordan would document complaints about his neck to his employer over the next five years. Jordan underwent surgery in 2012. Jordan recovered from the surgery without complication, but Dr. Doerr imposed lifting restrictions. As a result of the restrictions, Dean Foods terminated Jordan’s employment after it determined that it was unable to make reasonable accommodations which would allow Jordan to accomplish his essential job functions. The Commission chose not to adopt the referee’s recommendation although it also decided Jordan’s claims in favor of Employer/Surety. The Commission’s decision differed from the referee’s recommendation because the Commission decided to address the merits of Jordan’s claim related to the 2006 accident rather than holding that he abandoned those claims. After review of the Commission record, the Supreme Court concluded there was no reversible error and affirmed. View "Jordan v. Dean Foods" on Justia Law