Politte v. Department of Transp.
| Decision Date | 18 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 20617,20617 |
| Parties | Thomas C. POLITTE, Claimant-Respondent, v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer and State Insurance Fund, Surety, Defendants-Appellants. Lewiston, April 1994 Term |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., Randall, Blake & Cox, Lewiston, for appellants. Jay P. Gaskill, argued.
Landeck, Westberg, Judge & Graham, P.A., Moscow, for respondent. Charles L. Graham, argued.
This is a workers' compensation case. We conclude that the employer did not present substantial evidence contrary to the presumption contained in I.C. § 72-228 that the employee's injury arose out of his employment.
THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.
Thomas C. Politte (the employee) was employed by the Idaho department of transportation (the department) as a highway maintenance worker. On October 11, 1988, the employee worked his regular shift from 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., tending to routine maintenance chores at a highway rest area. When the employee arrived home from work at approximately 4:15 p.m., he was disoriented, weak, and unable to speak. The employee was taken to a hospital where he was diagnosed as suffering a stroke. Although the employee received extensive therapy and rehabilitation after the stroke, he remains partially paralyzed, and his ability to communicate is severely impaired.
The employee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The department and the state insurance fund (SIF), its surety, denied the claim. The employee applied to the Industrial Commission for a hearing to determine whether or not his stroke was work-related, the extent of his impairment and disability, and his entitlement to attorney fees. The Commission bifurcated the hearing, and proceeded first to determine whether the employee was entitled to the presumption contained in I.C. § 72-228 and whether he had suffered an accident causing an injury arising out of his employment. I.C. § 72-228 provides in pertinent part:
In any claim for compensation, where the employee has been killed, or is physically or mentally unable to testify, and where there is unrebutted prima facie evidence that indicates that the injury arose in the course of employment, it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that the injury arose out of the employment....
At the hearing, the department offered the testimony of two of the employee's supervisors to prove that there was no causal connection between employee's injury and his work with the department. In addition, the department introduced, and the Commission admitted, a letter from a cardiovascular surgeon (the surgeon), stating:
I have had the opportunity to review the medical records which you sent recently on Mr. Politte. Based on those records, it is my opinion that the cerebrovascular accidents suffered by Mr. Politte in 1988 had no cause or relationship with his employment. Other recognized "risk factors" in Mr. Politte's history would include hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and elevated blood glucose. These factors all increase the risk of symptomatic vascular disease.
In answer to your second question, therefore, the hypertension was not a preceding symptom of a possible stroke but rather one of several so-called risk factors.
Following the hearing, the Commission found that the employee was "unable to testify" within the meaning and intent of I.C. § 72-228, and that the employee's stroke commenced while the employee was at work on October 11 and, therefore, arose in the course of his employment. The Commission concluded that the employee was entitled to the benefit of the presumption in I.C. § 72-228. The Commission then examined whether the department had produced the substantial evidence necessary to rebut the statutory presumption that the employee's injury arose out of his employment. Although the Commission found the testimony of the employee's supervisors credible, it also found that the testimony did not rebut the presumption in I.C. § 72-228 because it was not proof of a medical nature. The Commission also concluded that the surgeon's letter did not constitute substantial evidence contrary to the presumption that the employee's injury arose out of the employment with the department. The Commission noted, among other things, that the foundation of the surgeon's opinion was unknown.
The department appealed, and the matter was set for oral argument. Prior to argument, however, the Court issued an order dismissing the appeal on the grounds that there was no final appealable order from the Commission. The parties thereafter stipulated to the extent of the employee's disability and the amount of his medical expenses and wages. The Commission adopted the stipulated facts as its findings and awarded the employee workers' compensation benefits for total permanent disability commencing October 11, 1988, as well as past and present medical benefits. The department appealed.
THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S INJURY DID NOT ARISE OUT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.
The department asserts that it presented substantial evidence that the employee's injury did not arise out of his employment. We disagree.
The Court's review of the correctness of the Commission's application of I.C. § 72-228 is a question of law. Evans v. Hara's, Inc., 123 Idaho 473, 475, 849 P.2d 934, 936 (1993). In this appeal, our task is to determine whether there is substantial evidence contrary to the presumption that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. City of Pocatello
...free review." Struhs v. Prot. Techs., Inc. , 133 Idaho 715, 718, 992 P.2d 164, 167 (1999). See also Politte v. Dep't of Transp. , 126 Idaho 270, 272, 882 P.2d 437, 439 (1994). "It is generally presumed that legislative acts are constitutional, that the state legislature has acted within its......
-
Jones v. Emmett Manor, 25317.
...records were clearly thought to be competent evidence on the question of causation in Langley. In Politte v. Idaho Department of Transportation, 126 Idaho 270, 882 P.2d 437 (1994), the Court upheld the determination of the Commission that a letter from a physician was not substantial eviden......
-
Fowble v. Snoline Exp., Inc.
...relationship of an injury to the claimant's employment must be supported by at least some medical proof." Politte v. Dept. of Transp., 126 Idaho 270, 273, 882 P.2d 437, 440 (1994). The claimant's burden is met when he submits proof of causation "to a reasonable degree of medical probability......
-
Jordan v. Walmart Assocs. (In re Jordan)
...(2014). The correctness of the Commission's application of Idaho Code section 72-228 is a question of law. Politte v. Dep't of Transp., 126 Idaho 270, 272, 882 P.2d 437, 439 (1994); Evans v. Hara's, Inc., 123 Idaho 473, 475, 849 P.2d 934, 936 (1993). Generally, when reviewing cases under se......