Hartman v. Double L Mfg.
| Decision Date | 06 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 30392., No. 30372 |
| Citation | 111 P.3d 141,141 Idaho 456 |
| Parties | Fritz HARTMAN, Claimant-Respondent, v. DOUBLE L MANUFACTURING, Employer, and Everest National Insurance Company, Surety, Defendants, and State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, Defendant-Appellant. Fritz Hartman, Claimant-Respondent, v. Double L Manufacturing, Employer, and Everest National Insurance Company, Surety, Defendants-Appellants, and State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, Defendant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Hopkins, Roden, Crockett, Hansen & Hoopes, Idaho Falls and Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for appellants in case no. 30372 and for respondents in case no. 30392. Paul B. Rippel argued.
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Boise, for appellant Double L. Manufacturing in case no. 30392. Glenna M. Christensen argued.
Cooper & Larsen, Pocatello, for respondent Hartman in case no. 30372 and 30392. Reed W. Larsen argued.
This is a worker's compensation case. The employer, its surety, and the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) appeal from the Industrial Commission's December 4, 2003 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. Because the Industrial Commission's decision is not a final appealable order, we dismiss the appeal and remand the matter for further proceedings.
During Fritz Hartman's eleven-year employment with Double L Manufacturing he was involved in three separate accidents. The third accident is the subject of Hartman's claim for worker's compensation benefits and benefits from the ISIF for total and permanent disability. The accident occurred on March 16, 1999, when a piler boom, a heavy piece of equipment that usually takes a crane to lift, was being moved on a small cart and slipped. Hartman tried to grab or catch the piler boom and twisted his back. Hartman felt the immediate onset of pain.
In a consolidated case the Industrial Commission heard testimony and concluded Hartman suffered an injury caused by the accident at work on March 16, 1999. Additionally, it determined that Hartman is totally and permanently disabled. Because the Industrial Commission could not establish from the record the extent of ISIF's liability, it retained jurisdiction over the issue to enable the parties to resolve the matter or present additional evidence for consideration. Double L Manufacturing, its surety, and ISIF timely appealed.
On appeal, this Court must address finality even if the parties fail to raise it because the issue is jurisdictional. "An appeal as a matter of right may be taken to the Supreme Court from the following judgments and orders: ... From any final decision or order of the Industrial Commission or from any final decision or order upon rehearing or reconsideration by the administrative agency." I.A.R. 11(d). "This Court has held that a decision or order that does not `finally dispose of all of the claimant's claims would not be a final decision subject to appeal pursuant to I.A.R. 11(d)....'" Matter of Nagle, 126 Idaho 139, 140, 879 P.2d 602, 603 (1994) (quoting Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 118 Idaho 147, 149, 795 P.2d 309, 311 (1990)). A determination of liability without the determination of the amount of compensation is not a final order. Lines v. Idaho Forest Industries, 125 Idaho 462, 464, 872 P.2d 725, 727 (1994). "[W]e held that `whenever the Commission explicitly retains jurisdiction over a matter, that act by its very nature infers that there is neither a final determination of the case nor a final permanent award to claimant.'" Jensen v. The Pillsbury Co., 121 Idaho 127, 127, 823 P.2d 161, 161 (1992) (quoting Reynolds v. Browning Ferris Indus., 113 Idaho 965, 969 751 P.2d 113, 117 (1988)).
In this case the Industrial Commission has not resolved the extent of ISIF's liability. The Industrial Commission did find that Double L Manufacturing and its surety were liable for the portion of disability caused by the March 1999 accident and ISIF is liable for the remainder. However, the Industrial Commission specifically declined to consider certain issues, stating, The resolution of these issues is necessary for a "final order" within the meaning of I.A.R. 11(d).
Appellant ISIF argues the Industrial Commission has no legal authority to retain jurisdiction for the determination of ISIF's extent of liability. ISIF contends that the only mechanism by which the Industrial Commission may retain jurisdiction is under the circumstances where a claimant's progressive injury has not stabilized and the impairment cannot be adequately determined for the purpose of establishing a permanent disability rating. See Reynolds v. Browning Ferris Industries, 113 Idaho 965, 751 P.2d 113 (1988)
. ISIF contends that retaining jurisdiction for any other reason than that identified in Reynolds would be a misapplication of the law, and potentially the Industrial Commission's order would never be considered final for any reason, resulting in a denial of due process. ISIF also asserts that the Industrial Commission must simply deny the claim for Hartman's failure to prove his case.
"Since the inception of Idaho's Workers' Compensation Act, Industrial Commission proceedings have been informal and designed for simplicity; the primary purpose of these proceedings being the attainment of justice in each individual case." Hagler v. Micron Technology, Inc., 118 Idaho 596, 599, 798...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mazzone v. Tex. Roadhouse, Inc.
...evidence if it finds that satisfactory evidence on a question of material fact is lacking. See, e.g., Hartman v. Double L Mfg., 141 Idaho 456, 458, 111 P.3d 141, 143 (2005) (holding that statute grants the Commission the authority to "request that [the parties] present adequate evidence .........
-
Deeds v. Regence Blueshield of Idaho
...this Court must address finality even if the parties fail to raise it because the issue is jurisdictional." Hartman v. Double L Mfg. Co., 141 Idaho 456, 457, 111 P.3d 141, 142 (2005). "In disputes involving arbitration, this court has stated: "The question of arbitrability is a question of ......
- Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc.
-
Green v. Roy Green, Dba St. Joes Salvage Logging, Emp'r, & Travelers Indem. Co.
...that impairment might be." The Commission determined:The Commission recognizes its authority, as discussed in Hartman v. Double L Manufacturing, 141 Idaho 456, 111 P.3d 141 (2005), to request evidence on the issue of Claimant's pre-existing thoracic spine impairment, yet we are reluctant to......