Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., No. 10292

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtMcFADDEN
Citation457 P.2d 408,93 Idaho 169
PartiesAmos O. FRISBIE, Claimant-Appellant, v. SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 10292
Decision Date09 July 1969

Page 408

457 P.2d 408
93 Idaho 169
Amos O. FRISBIE, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 10292.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
July 9, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 1969.

[93 Idaho 170]

Page 409

Cox & Powell, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.

H. J. Hull & Sons, Wallace, for respondent.

McFADDEN, Chief Justice.

From 1947 until 1954 the claimant-appellant, Amos O. Frisbie, worked for the respondent Sunshine Mining Company as an underground miner. Upon learning in 1954 that the appellant was suffering from grade three silicosis, the respondent transferred him to surface work as boiler tender and watchman. The appellant worked the night shift, working two shifts per week as a watchman and at other times tending the boilers. As watchman, it was his duty to tour the plant at various intervals throughout the night.

On March 11, 1966 the appellant left work due to his severe respiratory problem, which was diagnosed by physicians as silicosis complicated by several related factors. Appellant suffered at least two serious lung collapses and various other medical problems. Following his disability, and prior to his formal retirement in November 1966, the appellant received certain disability benefits pursuant to a group insurance policy maintained by joint contribution of miners and the respondent. After these benefits were exhausted in September 1966, and following a serious lung collapse in December of that year, the appellant attempted to meet with officials of the Sunshine Mining Company in regard to obtaining additional compensation for his disability. It appears from the record that there were several communications between appellant and respondent and at least two meetings were held to discuss appellant's request for compensation. These meetings culminated in an offer of settlement proposed by the company in July 1967. Appellant, however, rejected the offer and finally filed his claim for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board on September 7, 1967.

Medical testimony introduced at the hearing conducted by the board on appellant's claim establishes that the appellant is suffering from silicosis, which is the direct result of his employment with the respondent. Doctors testified that the appellant has great difficulty breathing and also in walking and that for these reasons he is totally disabled and unable to perform his job as night watchman.

On the basis of the testimony and evidence introduced, the board found that appellant was not injuriously exposed to silica dust after he was transferred to the night watchman job and that his last injurious exposure to the dust was prior to June 9, 1954 while he was employed underground as a hard rock miner. The board further found that appellant became totally disabled for any work on March 11, 1966 and that this disability is the direct result of his injurious exposure to silica dust prior to June 1954. These findings of fact are supported by substantial competent, although conflicting, evidence, and consequently are binding on this court on appeal.[93 Idaho 171]

Page 410

Woodall v. Idaho Potato Processors, Inc., 91 Idaho 626, 428 P.2d 943 (1967); Davis v. Schmidt Bros., Inc., 92 Idaho 312, 442 P.2d 448 (1968); McBride v. J. R. Simplot Co., 92 Idaho 274, 441 P.2d 723 (1968).

The board denied appellant's claim for compensation on the ground that under I.C. § 72-1209 as it existed in 1954 (S.L. 1939 Ch. 161, § 2, p. 290), disability in silicosis cases was compensable only if disability followed within two years of the claimant's last injurious exposure to silica dust. The board reasoned that since the last injurious exposure in the present case occurred in June 1954, the appellant's claim for compensation became barred when disability did not occur before June 1956. The appellant argued that under I.C. § 72-1209 as it existed at the time of his disability in 1966 (S.L.1965 Ch. 152, § 3, p. 294), 1 his claim is compensable because the two year limitation contained in the earlier law had been deleted, and no limitation between the time of last injurious exposure and disability was imposed. The board held, however, that appellant's claim for compensation was governed by the law in effect at the time of the last injurious exposure and that to apply I.C. § 72-1209 as amended in 1965 (S.L.1965, Ch. 152, § 3, p. 294) would be to give the 1965 amendment retroactive effect in violation of Idaho Const. Art. 1, § 13, and Art. 11, § 12. Following this determination appellant appealed to this court.

Appellant's first assignment of error is that the board exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling upon the constitutionality of applying I.C. § 72-1209 (S.L.1965, Ch. 152, § 3, p. 294). Relying upon Wanke v. Ziebarth Constr. Co., 69 Idaho 64, 202 P.2d 384 (1949), the appellant argues that the board has no power to rule upon the constitutionality of a law and consequently should have applied I.C. § 72-1209, as amended, to the present case, leaving the issue of the constitutionality of such application to the courts on appeal. Although Wanke v. Ziebarth Constr. Co., supra, supports appellant's position, it is our opinion that appellant has misinterpreted the action of the board in the present case. The board did not rule upon the constitutionality of the statute; rather, the board only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • State v. Lindquist, No. 12218
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 11 Enero 1979
    ...or upon rights which have been acquired or upon obligations which have existed prior to its passage. Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 172, 457 P.2d 408, 411 Lindquist argues that exposing him to the death penalty on resentencing works an ex post facto violation. 1 In Dobbert v.......
  • Barringer v. State, Nos. 15438-15440
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1986
    ...can sue under Idaho's wrongful death statute, that determination is made at the date of death. See also Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 457 P.2d 408 (1969). Thus, the statute in force at the date of Mr. Barringer's death is the statute under which Mrs. Barringer and her son mu......
  • Wood v. J. P. Stevens & Co., No. 62
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 30 Julio 1979
    ...317 (1973); Argonaut Mining Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 104 Cal.App.2d 27, 230 P.2d 637 (1951); Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 457 P.2d 408 (1969); Hirst v. Chevrolet Muncie Division of General Motors Corp., 110 Ind.App. 22, 33 N.E.2d 773 (1941); Ross v. Oxford Pap......
  • Peck v. Jacquemin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 23 Abril 1985
    ...Statutory Construction § 2202, p. 117 (3d ed. 1943); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 412, p. 980." (Emphasis added.) Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 172, 457 P.2d 408 (1969); Cox v. Hart, 260 U.S. 427, 435, 43 S.Ct. 154, 67 L.Ed. 332 (1922); Wood v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 297 N.C. 636, 650,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • State v. Lindquist, No. 12218
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 11 Enero 1979
    ...or upon rights which have been acquired or upon obligations which have existed prior to its passage. Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 172, 457 P.2d 408, 411 Lindquist argues that exposing him to the death penalty on resentencing works an ex post facto violation. 1 In Dobbert v.......
  • Barringer v. State, Nos. 15438-15440
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1986
    ...can sue under Idaho's wrongful death statute, that determination is made at the date of death. See also Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 457 P.2d 408 (1969). Thus, the statute in force at the date of Mr. Barringer's death is the statute under which Mrs. Barringer and her son mu......
  • Wood v. J. P. Stevens & Co., No. 62
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 30 Julio 1979
    ...317 (1973); Argonaut Mining Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 104 Cal.App.2d 27, 230 P.2d 637 (1951); Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 457 P.2d 408 (1969); Hirst v. Chevrolet Muncie Division of General Motors Corp., 110 Ind.App. 22, 33 N.E.2d 773 (1941); Ross v. Oxford Pap......
  • Peck v. Jacquemin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 23 Abril 1985
    ...Statutory Construction § 2202, p. 117 (3d ed. 1943); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 412, p. 980." (Emphasis added.) Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining Co., 93 Idaho 169, 172, 457 P.2d 408 (1969); Cox v. Hart, 260 U.S. 427, 435, 43 S.Ct. 154, 67 L.Ed. 332 (1922); Wood v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 297 N.C. 636, 650,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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