Case Title: Andrews v. Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund

Citation: 

Docket Number: 44241

State: idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Date: 2017-05-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
Docket No. 44241 
 
STEVEN ANDREWS, 
 
           Claimant-Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF IDAHO, INDUSTRIAL  
SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, 
 
           Defendant-Respondent. 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
) 
 
Boise, April 2017 Term 
 
2017 Opinion No. 51 
 
Filed:  May 26, 2017 
 
Stephen Kenyon, Clerk 
 
Appeal from the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho. 
 
The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed. 
 
 
Cooper & Larsen, Chartered, Pocatello, for appellant.  Reed Larsen argued. 
 
 
Benoit, Alexander, Harwood, High & Mollerup, PLLC, Twin Falls, for  
  
respondent.  Bren Mollerup argued. 
 
                     _______________________________________________ 
 
HORTON, Justice. 
 
This is an appeal from the Industrial Commission. Steven Andrews filed for workers’ 
compensation benefits after he fell from a ladder in 2009 while working for the Corporation of 
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church). Andrews sought to establish that 
the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) was liable pursuant to Idaho Code section 72-
332. Following a hearing and consideration of post-hearing depositions, the referee issued his 
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation on May 10, 2016. The referee 
concluded that Andrews failed to show that ISIF was liable because the evidence showed that 
any pre-existing physical impairments did not constitute a subjective hindrance and that Andrews 
failed to show that his pre-existing impairments combined with the industrial accident to cause 
his total and permanent disability. In an order of the same date as the referee’s recommendation, 
the Commission adopted the recommendation. Andrews timely appealed, arguing that the 
Commission’s order was not supported by substantial and competent evidence. We affirm. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
2 
 
 
Andrews was injured when he fell from a ladder in March 2009. Andrews was 53 years 
old and employed by the LDS Church as a mechanic at the time of the accident. Andrews had 
been employed by the LDS Church since 1988. Andrews was responsible for maintaining 
between 32 and 42 buildings for the LDS Church. Andrews graduated from Marsh Valley High 
School in 1977 and held a variety of jobs before being hired by the LDS Church. 
The accident that led to Andrews filing this claim occurred on March 17, 2009. Andrews 
fell from a 12-foot upper mezzanine and landed on his shoulders on a stage. This accident 
required Andrews to have surgery on his lower back. Following the surgery, the LDS Church 
terminated Andrews’ employment because they could no longer employ him due to his 
restrictions and physical disabilities. After losing his job, Andrews unsuccessfully attempted to 
find another job. Andrews had problems with his feet, knees, lower back, shoulders, and neck 
before the 2009 accident. 
Andrews filed his workers’ compensation claim in November 2010. In November 2011, 
Andrews reached a settlement agreement with the LDS Church. Andrews then proceeded with 
this claim against ISIF. In 2015, a hearing was held before the referee. On May 10, 2016, 
following post-hearing depositions, the referee filed his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 
and Recommendation. The referee found that Andrews had failed to show that his pre-existing 
injuries were a subjective hindrance to his employment and that he failed to show that but for the 
pre-existing injuries he would not have been totally and permanently disabled. Based on those 
findings, the referee recommended that the Commission hold that ISIF was not liable for 
Andrews’ total and permanent disability. The Commission issued an order the same day adopting 
the referee’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation. Andrews timely 
appealed.  
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
“When this Court reviews a decision from the Industrial Commission, we exercise free 
review over questions of law, but review questions of fact only to determine whether the 
Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence.” Uhl v. Ballard 
Med. Products, Inc., 138 Idaho 653, 657, 67 P.3d 1265, 1269 (2003). This Court is 
“constitutionally compelled to defer to the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact where 
supported by substantial and competent evidence.” Fife v. Home Depot, Inc., 151 Idaho 509, 
513, 260 P.3d 1180, 1184 (2011). “Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that 
3 
 
 
a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.” Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 154 
Idaho 750, 755, 302 P.3d 718, 723 (2013).  “This Court will not disturb the Commission’s 
determination as to the weight and credibility of evidence unless clearly erroneous.” Id. “In 
reviewing the Commission’s decision, we must view the facts and all inferences from them most 
favorably to the party who prevailed before the Commission.” Dumaw v. J.L. Norton Logging, 
118 Idaho 150, 155, 795 P.2d 312, 317 (1990). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The primary issue in this case is whether there is substantial and competent evidence to 
support the Commission’s determination that ISIF is not liable for Andrews’ total and permanent 
disability. Idaho Code section 72-332(1) providess: 
If an employee who has a permanent physical impairment from any cause 
or origin, incurs a subsequent disability by an injury or occupational disease 
arising out of and in the course of his employment, and by reason of the combined 
effects of both the pre-existing impairment and the subsequent injury or 
occupational disease or by reason of the aggravation and acceleration of the pre-
existing impairment suffers total and permanent disability, the employer and 
surety shall be liable for payment of compensation benefits only for the disability 
caused by the injury or occupational disease, including scheduled and 
unscheduled permanent disabilities, and the injured employee shall be 
compensated for the remainder of his income benefits out of the industrial special 
indemnity account. 
I.C. § 72-332(1). In Dumaw, this Court laid out a four-element test for apportioning liability 
under Idaho Code section 72-332. The four elements are: (1) whether there was a pre-existing 
impairment, (2) whether the impairment was manifest, (3) whether the impairment was a 
subjective hindrance, and (4) whether the impairment in any way combines in causing total 
permanent disability. Dumaw, 118 Idaho at 155, 795 P.2d at 317. The claimant has the burden of 
proving all four elements. Eckhart v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 133 Idaho 260, 263, 985 
P.2d 685, 688 (1999). Here, the Commission adopted the referee’s recommendation that 
Andrews had failed to show the last two elements. Andrews argues that this conclusion is not 
supported by substantial and competent evidence. As it is dispositive of this appeal, we first 
address the fourth element. 
A. Whether the pre-existing impairment in any way combines in causing total permanent 
disability 
As noted above, the fourth element of the Dumaw test is whether the pre-existing 
impairment in any way combines in causing total and permanent disability. Dumaw, 118 Idaho at 
4 
 
 
155, 795 P.2d at 317. The Commission adopted the referee’s finding that Andrews’ total and 
permanent disability was due solely to his March 2009 accident and thus ISIF is not liable. 
Andrews contends that this finding is not based on substantial and competent evidence. We 
disagree. 
“To satisfy the ‘combined effects’ requirement in I.C. § 72-332(1), a claimant must show 
that but for the pre-existing impairments, he would not have been totally permanently disabled.” 
Eckhart, 133 Idaho at 263, 985 P.2d at 688. In Eckhart, the claimant attempted to establish ISIF 
liability for his total and permanent disability following a back injury. Id. at 261, 985 P.2d at 
686. This Court upheld the Commission’s determination that ISIF was not liable because Eckhart 
had failed to show that, but for pre-existing impairments, he would not have been disabled. Id. at 
263, 985 P.2d at 688. The Commission found that Eckhart’s total and permanent disability could 
be attributed solely to his final back injury. Id. at 263–64, 985 P.2d at 688–89. 
The Commission’s finding that Andrews’ disability could be attributed solely to the 2009 
accident was based on Dr. Collins’ testimony. In her deposition of August 19, 2015, Dr. Collins 
testified that Andrews had a number of physical limitations as a result of his 2009 accident. Due 
to these limitations, Dr. Collins testified that Andrews likely would not be able to find a job in 
the Pocatello market. Additionally, Dr. Selznick testified that Andrews’ surgery following the 
March 2009 accident was necessary solely because of that accident. Dr. Selznick also testified 
that the restrictions considered by Dr. Collins were the result of that surgery. The testimony of 
Drs. Collins and Selznick constitute substantial and competent evidence supporting the 
Commission’s determination that Andrews’ total and permanent disability resulted solely from 
the 2009 accident. 
B. Whether the pre-existing impairment was a subjective hindrance  
Because there is substantial and competent evidence in the record to support the 
Commission’s finding that Andrews failed to meet the fourth element of the Dumaw test, we do 
not decide whether substantial and competent evidence supported the Commission’s 
determination that the pre-existing impairment was not a subjective hindrance. 
C. Attorney fees on appeal 
ISIF seeks attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2. ISIF contends 
that Andrews’ appeal simply asks this Court to reweigh the evidence before the Commission. 
Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2 provides in pertinent part that: 
5 
 
 
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate that the attorney or 
party has read the notice of appeal, petition, motion, brief or other document; that 
to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief after reasonable 
inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith 
argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is 
not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause 
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If the notice of 
appeal, petition, motion, brief, or other document is signed in violation of this 
rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the 
person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which 
may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the 
reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the notice of appeal, 
petition, motion, brief or other document including a reasonable attorney’s fee. 
“We construe [Idaho Appellate Rule] 11.2 in the same manner as [Idaho Rule of Civil 
Procedure] 11(a)(1) because they have identical wording.” Akers v. Mortensen, 160 Idaho 286, 
289, 371 P.3d 340, 343 (2016) (quoting Jim & Maryann Plane Family Trust v. Skinner, 157 
Idaho 927, 936, 342 P.3d 639, 648 (2015)). “[A]ttorney fees can be awarded as sanctions when a 
party or attorney violates either (a) the frivolous filings clause or (b) the improper purpose 
clause.” Id. (quoting Sims v. Jacobson, 157 Idaho 980, 987, 342 P.3d 907, 914 (2015)).  
After careful consideration, we have concluded that Andrews’ arguments, although not 
ultimately persuasive, were not frivolously advanced. Therefore, we do not award attorney fees 
on appeal. 
IV.  
CONCLUSION 
We affirm the order of the Industrial Commission and award costs, but not attorney fees, 
on appeal to Respondent ISIF. 
 
Chief Justice BURDICK, Justices EISMANN, JONES and Justice Pro Tem KIDWELL, 
CONCUR.