Langley v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund

• Decision Date: 17 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 20914,20914
• Citation: 890 P.2d 732,126 Idaho 781
• Parties: Donald E. LANGLEY, Claimant-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, Defendant-Respondent. Boise, December 1994 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 732

890 P.2d 732

126 Idaho 781

Donald E. LANGLEY, Claimant-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 20914.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Boise, December 1994 Term.

Feb. 17, 1995.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1995.

Coughlan & Coughlan, Boise, for appellant. Glenn A. Coughlan argued.

Mallea & Scrivner, Boise, for respondent. Wesley L. Scrivner argued.

McDEVITT, Chief Justice.

BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Claimant Donald E. Langley (Langley) was employed by Champion Home Builders (Champion) of Weiser, Idaho, from September of 1976 until June 29, 1990. Langley first experienced trouble with his right knee on May 8, 1987, while working for Champion as a welder. Langley was eventually examined by W. Steven Rudd, M.D. (Dr. Rudd), on December 7, 1987, at which time a peripheral tear of the medial meniscus was diagnosed and arthroscopic surgery was recommended. Langley declined surgery at that time due to uncertainty about insurance coverage.

In 1989, Langley filed a Notice of Injury and Claim for Benefits, alleging he had contracted emphysema from the inhalation of smoke and fumes while welding for Champion since 1976.

Langley continued to have trouble with his knee throughout this time, and made an appointment for February 7, 1990, with Dr. Rudd. The day before his scheduled appointment, Langley tripped on some hoses on the floor in the paint shop, which incident was witnessed by his supervisor. However, in describing his symptoms to Dr. Rudd the following day, Langley did not mention the hose-tripping incident. Dr. Rudd once again recommended surgery.

Langley filed a Notice of Injury and Claim for Benefits relative to the February 6 incident, and underwent arthroscopic surgery on February 16, 1990. Following three months of physical therapy, Langley was released by Dr. Rudd to return to work on May 21, 1990. On June 29, 1990, he was terminated by Champion because he was unable to "perform up to par the responsibility required in his job."

Langley's claim for workers' compensation benefits was set for hearing before the Industrial Commission (the Commission) on February 16, 1993. Immediately before the hearing, Langley settled with Champion's surety. The hearing then proceeded solely against the State of Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF). At the hearing, ISIF did not challenge Langley's claim that a compensable industrial accident occurred in May of 1987.

An Industrial Commission Referee (Referee) entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed order on August 3, 1990, following two days of testimony. The Referee found that Langley suffered a right knee injury on May 8, 1987, which injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with Champion. However, based on Dr. Rudd's testimony, ¹ the Referee further found that Langley failed to establish a causal link between the February 6, 1990, incident and the cartilage tears repaired in the February 16, 1990, surgery. Thus, the Referee concluded, Langley did not prove that on February 6, 1990, he suffered a compensable accident and resulting injury. The Referee also concluded that Dr. Rudd's testimony did not support a finding that the aggravation of Langley's right knee injury from repetitive bending and twisting motions constituted an industrial accident within the meaning of I.C. § 72-102(15)(b); and that Langley failed to prove, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, a causal relationship between his respiratory problems and his work environment, and thus failed to prove that his respiratory problems constituted an occupational disease under I.C. § 72-102(18).

After concluding that the May 8, 1987, injury to Langley's right knee was the only compensable injury established by Langley in the record, the Referee analyzed the alleged liability of the ISIF. The Referee Based on the foregoing, the Commission enter an order on August 3, 1993, denying Langley's claim against ISIF. Langley filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to I.C. § 72-718 on August 16, 1993. The Commission filed its Order on Reconsideration September 27, 1993, denying Langley's motion.

[126 Idaho 784] noted that, in order to establish ISIF liability pursuant to I.C. § 72-332, Langley had to prove that prior to May of 1987 he had a permanent physical impairment which combined with the effects of the industrial accident to cause total and permanent disability. Based on the evidence presented, the Referee concluded that the only preexisting conditions Langley established were a hiatal hernia diagnosed in June of 1983, and a 10 percent hearing loss. The Referee further concluded that neither Langley's hearing loss nor hiatal hernia presented a serious hindrance or obstacle to Langley's employment prior to the May 1987 industrial accident, and thus the conditions did not qualify as preexisting permanent physical impairments under I.C. § 72-332(2). In its Order on Reconsideration, the Commission found that, although Langley's respiratory problems were a preexisting condition, the condition did not constitute a serious hindrance or obstacle to his employment prior to the May 1987 accident.

ANALYSIS

When reviewing Industrial Commission decisions on appeal, this Court reviews questions of fact only to determine if there is substantial and competent evidence to support the findings of the Commission, but exercises free review over questions of law. Idaho Const. art. V, § 9; I.C. § 72-732; Dewey v. Merrill, 124 Idaho 201, 858 P.2d 740 (1993).

I. EVIDENTIARY ERRORS

The first issue Langley assigns on appeal is whether the Commission erred in excluding several of his proffered exhibits from admission into evidence. When issues cited on appeal are not supported by propositions of law, authority, or argument, they will not be considered. Phipps v. Phipps, 124 Idaho 775, 780, 864 P.2d 613, 618 (1993); Murray v. Farmers Ins. Co., 118 Idaho 224, 226, 796 P.2d 101, 103 (1990); In re the Estate of Freeburn, 101 Idaho 739, 741, 620 P.2d 773, 775 (1980); I.A.R. 35. As ISIF noted in its responsive brief, Langley failed to support this assignment of error with either argument or authority. Therefore, we decline to address it.

II. THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE

When assessing whether the Commission's findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent evidence, this Court does not try the matter anew by weighing the evidence and acting akin to a trial court, nor are we concerned with whether we would have reached the same conclusion based upon the evidence presented. Pomerinke v. Excel Trucking Transp., Inc., 124 Idaho 301, 305, 859 P.2d 337, 341 (1993). Rather, we construe the facts in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and only disturb the Commission's findings if we conclude they are clearly erroneous. I.C. § 72-732(1); Roberts v. Kit Mfg. Co., 124 Idaho 946, 947, 866 P.2d 969, 970 (1993).

A. Langley failed to prove that a compensable accident occurred on February 6, 1990.

Based on the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that, while Langley may have tripped over a pile of hoses on the floor while working February 6, 1990, that incident did not rise to the level of a compensable, injury-causing accident as defined by I.C. § 72-102(15). ²

In order to qualify as a compensable accident, a mishap or event must result in "violence to the physical structure of the body." I.C. § 72-102(15)(c). A claimant must provide medical testimony that supports a claim for compensation to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Cole v. Stokely, 118 Idaho 173, 175, 795 P.2d 872, 874 (1990).

Langley argues that, under this Court's ruling in Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto. Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 74 P.2d 171 (1937), the Commission must accept as true his uncontroverted account of the hose-tripping incident. However, that case is inapplicable here. Unlike the claimant in Pierstorff, Langley's interpretation of the physical consequences of the February 6 incident was controverted by his own medical expert.

The Commission did not discount Langley's testimony that the hose-tripping event occurred. Rather, it concluded that the event did not rise to the level of a compensable, injury-causing accident because Langley failed to provide any proof, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the cartilage damage Dr. Rudd surgically repaired on February 16, 1990, was causally related to the February 6 hose-tripping incident. In fact, in a letter to Langley's counsel, which Langley offered in support of his claim, Dr. Rudd expressly stated that:

I personally cannot ascribe knee damage to his knee to any one single activity or event. Furthermore, Mr. Langley at no time described for me any specific injury event in accurate enough detail to reliably ascribe Mr. Langley's injuries to that particular event.

This passage is remarkably similar to the facts presented in Roberts v. Kit Mfg. Co., 124 Idaho at 947-48, 866 P.2d at 970-71. In that case, the Commission found that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of an accident within the meaning of I.C. § 72-102(15). The Commission based its finding on statements contained in a letter from the claimant's doctor to the claimant's attorney, in which the doctor voiced uncertainty as to the cause of the claimant's injury. We affirmed.

Like the claimant in Roberts, Langley failed to carry his burden of proof before the Commission and has likewise failed to demonstrate on appeal that the Commission's view of the evidence is clearly erroneous. Thus, resolving all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to ISIF, we conclude that the Commission's finding is supported by substantial and competent evidence.

B. Langley failed to prove the occurrence of any compensable accident subsequent to May of 1987.

The next issue Langley cites on appeal is whether the Commission erred in finding that he failed to...