Neihart v. Universal Joint Auto Parts, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. 30715.,30715.
• Citation: 141 Idaho 801,118 P.3d 133
• Parties: Marie NEIHART, Claimant-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL JOINT AUTO PARTS, INC., Employer, State Insurance Fund, Surety, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 133

118 P.3d 133

141 Idaho 801

Marie NEIHART, Claimant-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL JOINT AUTO PARTS, INC., Employer, State Insurance Fund, Surety, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 30715.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2005 Term.

July 22, 2005.

Curtis N. Holmes, Pocatello, for appellant (did not appear for argument).

Meyers, Thomsen & Larson, PLLP, Pocatello, for respondents. M. Jay Meyers argued.

TROUT, Justice.

The appellant, Marie Neihart (Neihart), was involved in a work-related automobile accident while employed with Universal Joint Auto Parts, Inc. (Universal). The Industrial Commission ruled Neihart had failed to meet her burden of proving the accident caused the injury for which she was seeking benefits and, therefore, denied benefits. At issue in this appeal are whether there was substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's decision and whether Universal is entitled to its attorney fees on appeal.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2001, Neihart was employed by Universal as a parts delivery driver. On that day, Neihart was involved in a relatively low-speed automobile collision. Neither party disputes that Neihart was involved in the accident and that at the time of the accident, she was acting within the course and scope of her employment. Neihart estimated that her speed at the time of the collision was approximately ten miles per hour. Even though Neihart claimed to have been injured, she declined any medical services. Several months later, Neihart began a series of visits to numerous chiropractors for complaints of neck, back, hip and knee pain. Throughout most of these visits, she did not indicate in any way that she thought her pain arose from the January 12, 2001 automobile accident. Neihart also began new employment as a dancer at a bar. On one of the visits to a chiropractor, Neihart reported on the personal history form that she was experiencing pain on the left side of her neck and left arm tingling. The form asked how the injury occurred and Neihart wrote "dancing last night." The form asked when the symptoms started and Neihart wrote July 26, 2001. The form also asked if she had experienced this problem before. Neihart wrote "yes" it had occurred in "June."

Eventually, Neihart filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits alleging her ongoing neck and back pain was caused by the January 12, 2001 automobile accident. She was sent for an independent medical examination to Dr. Michael T. Phillips, who took a patient history, performed an examination and reviewed her medical records and x-rays. Dr. Phillips reported there was no direct correlation between Neihart's current complaints and the automobile accident and that there were no findings to suggest a permanent impairment as a result of the accident. Neihart also saw a chiropractor who also took a patient history, performed an examination and reviewed her medical records and x-rays. The chiropractor concluded Neihart's complaints were caused by the automobile accident. He opined Neihart had sustained a total combined permanent impairment rating of 6% of the whole person.

The matter went to a hearing before a referee for the Industrial Commission. The referee considered all of the evidence and decided to accept the testimony of the independent medical examiner. The referee concluded Neihart had "failed to meet her burden of proving the injury for which she seeks benefits was caused by the auto accident that occurred on January 12, 2001." The Industrial Commission adopted the recommendation of the referee and Neihart now appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a decision of the Industrial Commission, this Court views all the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Industrial Commission. Luttrell v. Clearwater County Sheriff's Office, 140 Idaho 581, 583, 97 P.3d 448, 450 (2004). "When this Court reviews a Commission decision, it exercises free review over questions of law, but reviews questions of fact only to determine whether substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission's findings." Id. (citing Hughen v. Highland Estates, 137 Idaho 349, 350, 48 P.3d 1238, 1240 (2002)). Substantial and competent evidence is "relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." Boise Orthopedic Clinic v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 128 Idaho 161, 164, 911 P.2d 754, 757 (1996). The Industrial Commission's conclusions regarding the credibility and weight of evidence will not be disturbed unless the conclusions are clearly erroneous. Zapata v. J.R. Simplot Co., 132 Idaho 513, 515, 975 P.2d 1178, 1180 (1999).

III. ANALYSIS

A. There is Substantial, Competent Evidence Supporting the Commission's Decision

Neihart argues there is substantial, competent evidence supporting her claim for worker's compensation benefits. That is not the test applied by this Court on appeals from the Industrial Commission. On appeal, this Court does not re-weigh the evidence or consider whether it would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence presented. Warden v. Idaho Timber Corp., 132 Idaho 454, 457, 974 P.2d 506, 509 (1999). As stated above, we review questions of fact only to determine "whether substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission's findings." Luttrell, at 583, 97 P.3d at 450. In this case, the findings of the Commission are supported by: the deposition and report of Michael T. Phillips, M.D., the deposition and report of Glen D. Randall, D.C., the deposition and report of Robert E. Ward, D.C., the Idaho Vehicle Collision Report, the transcript...