Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal arose from an Industrial Commission (the Commission) order denying medical care benefits to Channel Rish. Rish worked as a cashier at Home Depot. While working on October 30, 2005, Rish slipped on a floor mat and injured her right knee. The injury ultimately required Rish to undergo three knee surgeries, which Dr. Casey Huntsman performed in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Roughly three months after Rish’s third surgery, Dr. Huntsman concluded Rish had achieved maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Huntsman, however, further noted that Rish “definitely needs . . . continued pain management” with Dr. Holly Zoe. To that end, Rish visited Dr. Zoe for pain management treatment. Respondents remained skeptical as to Rish’s continued medical care with Dr. Zoe. Rish filed a worker’s compensation complaint to seek past and future disability benefits and medical care. Respondents answered and conceded Rish was entitled to the already-paid disability benefits and medical care, but Respondents disputed whether she was entitled to additional disability benefits and medical care. After a hearing, the Commission held in Respondents’ favor. The Commission noted that Rish did not timely raise the issue of disability benefits, but concluded Rish was nevertheless entitled to no additional disability benefits. Further, the Commission concluded Rish was entitled to no additional medical care benefits because the medical care Rish received after August 9, 2007 (the date when Dr. Huntsman deemed her at MMI) was unreasonable. Rish appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Commission erred in holding that the medical care Rish received after August 9, 2007 was unreasonable. As such, the Court vacated the Commission’s denial of medical care benefits and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rish v. Home Depot" on Justia Law

Claimant Gary Davis, employer Hammack Management, Inc., surety the Idaho State Insurance Fund, and the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (“ISIF”) entered into a compensation agreement (“Stipulation”). The parties agreed that Claimant became totally and permanently disabled based on the combined effects of preexisting impairments and a workplace injury that occurred in 2004. The Stipulation outlined each party’s financial obligations to Claimant, including a credit to Employer for permanent partial impairment benefits previously paid. The Idaho Industrial Commission (“Commission”) approved the Stipulation. Subsequently, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its decision in “Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc.,” (335 P.3d 1150 (2014)), prohibiting such a credit. Claimant then sought a declaratory ruling that the credit in the Stipulation was void. The Commission issued an order stating that the Stipulation was binding as written and subsequently denied Claimant’s motion for reconsideration. Claimant appealed. The Supreme Court concluded the credit in the Stipulation was invalid and the Commission’s order approving the Stipulation was void. The Court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the Claimant’s petition for declaratory ruling but reversed its order upholding the Stipulation and the credit. View "Davis v. Hammack Mgmt." on Justia Law

Appellants, Consolidated Farms LLC, dba Elk Mountain Farms (“Employer”), and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, appealed an Idaho Industrial Commission’s finding that Respondent Rodrigo Rodriguez was totally and permanently disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. In addition to his work for the Employer’s farm in irrigation, Rodriguez also helped operate and maintain the machinery used in the harvesting process. Rodriguez, who was right handed, was attempting to clear dirt and other debris from a conveyor belt using a cutting hook. As Rodriguez reached into the machine, the conveyor belt sped up, catching his arm. The machine crushed Rodriguez’s right hand and forearm, breaking numerous bones and causing extensive damage to his nerves and tendons. Following his injury, Rodriguez underwent six surgeries and extensive physical therapy in order to regain limited use of his arm. Rodriguez’s employment was seasonal. Each year he was required to sign a waiver acknowledging that his employment was “Temporary” rather than “Permanent” and that his employment would end at the conclusion of the growing season. For 21 years Rodriguez was rehired by Employer at the beginning of each season. For many of these seasons he was part of the “Core Group” of employees. Rodriguez filed a disability/medical benefits workers compensation complaint with the Idaho Industrial Commission. The Commission issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. It concluded that Rodriguez had suffered a disability of 57% whole person and was permanently disabled under the futility prong of the odd-lot doctrine. The Employer appealed. Finding no reversible error in the Commission’s decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rodriguez v. Consolidated Farms, LLC" on Justia Law

Geralyn Gallagher appealed when her lawsuit against the Best Western Cottontree Inn (the Hotel) and Snake River Peterson Properties LLC (Snake River) was dismissed. The district court held that the amended complaint did not relate back to the date of the original filing and that the statute of limitations was not tolled by Snake River’s failure to file a certificate of assumed business name. Gallagher argued that the amended complaint should relate back to the date that she filed the original complaint. Gallagher argued that because complaints can be amended at any time, and because the original complaint was filed within the statute of limitations, the amended complaint related back to that time. The district court found that because Gallagher was amending her complaint to name a new defendant, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) applied. Snake River did not have notice of the suit within the statute of limitations, the district court held that the amended complaint could not relate back. The Supreme Court concluded the district court’s conclusion was correct. Gallagher also argued the statute of limitations should have been tolled because Snake River failed to file a certificate of assumed business name with the Secretary of State. The district court found that because Gallagher’s only search was of the Secretary of State’s database, Gallagher did not exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the proper party. The district court therefore declined to toll the statute of limitations. Although the Supreme Court found that the district court correctly dismissed Gallagher’s personal injury action due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Court remanded this case in order to give the district court the opportunity to entertain a motion to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action against Snake River under Idaho Code section 53-509(2). View "Gallagher v. Best Wester Cottontree" on Justia Law

Joseph Maravilla and J.R. Simplot Company both appealed the Industrial Commission’s (Commission) Order on Petition for Declaratory Ruling. Maravilla was injured in an industrial accident while working for Simplot, and Simplot paid Maravilla’s worker’s compensation benefits for that injury. In a separate action, Maravilla brought suit against Idaho Industrial Contractors, Inc. (IIC), the contractor performing repairs on the area where Maravilla was injured. Maravilla and IIC settled the claim for $75,000 and Simplot claimed subrogation against Maravilla. In its order, the Commission ruled that Maravilla could have argued that Simplot was partly at fault for Maravilla’s industrial accident and that Simplot’s negligence, if proved, was not a bar to Simplot being reimbursed for worker’s compensation payments it had paid Maravilla. Simplot appealed the Commission’s decision that Maravilla’s settlement with IIC does not preclude Maravilla from attempting to prove Simplot’s negligence. Maravilla appealed the Commission’s ruling that Simplot was entitled to reimbursement even if Simplot’s negligence contributed to Maravilla’s injury. The Supreme Court, after its review, affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the controlling case law in this matter: “The adoption of comparative negligence and the abrogation of joint and several liability do not affect the rationale behind the Liberty Mutual rule, let alone require its abandonment.” The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Maravilla v. J. R. Simplot Co." on Justia Law

Appellants Ronnel Barrett, Gregg Hammerberg, Eric Tester, and Matthew Williams were injured in a rock burst in 2011, and sued Hecla Mining Company, owner and operator of the Lucky Friday Mine. Appellants contended that Hecla knew the mine was unsafe and knowingly placed Appellants in danger of harm. Appellants claimed that such behavior constituted an act of “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” that was not exclusively covered by the Idaho Worker’s Compensation Act (IWCA). On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that because there was no evidence that Hecla specifically intended to harm Appellants, the claims were controlled exclusively by the IWCA. On that ground, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Hecla. On appeal, Appellants argued that the district court erred in its determination that the IWCA exclusively governed their claims. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Barrett v. Hecla Mining Co" on Justia Law

Patricia Marek, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Larry "Pete" Marek, and Pete's surviving children Michael, Jodie and Hayley, all appealed when the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hecla Mining Company (and its related companies) and several former co-workers. The Mareks sued the company when Pete died after being injured in 2011 at a rock fall at the Lucky Friday Mine operated by Hecla. The Mareks argued that Hecla's decision to remove a pillar from the mining area was sufficiently egregious enough to allow them to pursue their claims outside of the Idaho Worker's Compensation Act. In its judgment in favor of Hecla, the district court concluded the Act applied because the company's conduct did not amount to "willful or unprovoked physical aggression," and claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. Finding no error in that analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Marek v. Hecla, Limited" 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

Harvey Wainio’s primary care physician referred him to podiatrist Dr. Richard M. Allen, because of a bunion on his right foot. In Wainio's first meeting with Dr. Allen, the doctor recommended surgery. Wainio agreed to have the surgery, and he again met with Dr. Allen at his office for a preoperative visit. Dr. Allen performed the surgery at Syringa Surgical Center, LLC (“the Surgical Center”). Three days later, Wainio began having symptoms that caused him to seek emergency medical treatment. Due to insufficient blood flow to his right foot and an infection, his foot became necrotic, requiring amputation of the foot. The Surgical Center moved for summary judgment which was granted, with the trial court finding that at the time of the alleged negligence, Dr. Allen was not acting in the capacity of an agent of the Surgical Center or as a member of its medical staff. Wainio appealed, arguing dismissing the Surgical Center was made in error. But finding none, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Shatto v. Syringa Surgical Center" on Justia Law

David and Jayme Samples (“the Samples”) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ray Hanson and Bingham Memorial Hospital in a medical malpractice action. Mr. Samples was admitted to Bingham Memorial Hospital (“BMH”) in Blackfoot with abdominal pain and was found to have acute cholecystitis. Dr. Hanson performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on Mr. Samples. Dr. Birkenhagen was a practicing surgeon at PMC in 2009 when Dr. Hanson performed the laparoscopic cholecystectomy on Mr. Samples. Dr. Birkenhagen was a member of the American College of Surgeons and board certified at the time. At PMC, Dr. Birkenhagen re-opened the surgical site and discovered sepsis. Dr. Birkenhagen removed significant amounts of pus and later operated in order to repair a hole in the colon, which had allowed stool to leak out of the incision at the surgical site. The sepsis had caused Mr. Samples’ respiratory distress. Samples filed suit against BMH and Dr. Hanson for medical malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment after it determined that the Samples failed to establish the necessary foundation under Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013 to admit testimony from the Samples’ only medical expert. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "This is not a complicated standard of care. It merely calls for basic post-operative care to ensure that the patient does not suffer infection or complications. It is not a standard of care that requires detailed specialization, intricate treatments, expensive equipment, or detailed knowledge of drug interactions. One would hope that any surgeon, regardless of whether operating in the backwoods or a metropolitan hospital, would monitor the patient post-operatively to ensure a decent recovery without infection or complications. That didn’t happen with Mr. Samples, as outlined by Dr. Birkenhagen." View "Samples v. Hanson" on Justia Law