Case Title: Arthur Myers v. Qwest and Reliance National Indemnity Company Workers compensation claim re failure to comply with Idaho Code

Citation: 

Docket Number: 32852

State: idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Date: 2007-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
Docket No. 32852 
 
ARTHUR MYERS, 
 
Claimant-Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
QWEST, Employer, and RELIANCE 
NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, 
Surety, 
 
Defendants-Respondents. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
Boise, May 2007 Term 
 
Opinion No.  79 
 
Filed: May 23, 2007 
 
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 
 
 
 
Appeal from the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho. 
 
The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed. 
  
 Arthur Myers, appellant pro se. 
 
 Moore & Baskin, LLP, Boise, for respondent.  Thomas P. Baskin argued. 
 
 
 
EISMANN, Justice. 
 
This is an appeal from an order denying a worker’s compensation claim due to the 
claimant’s failure to comply with the notice and claim requirements of Idaho Code § 72-448.  
We affirm. 
 
I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
Arthur Myers was a long-time employee of Quest and its predecessors.  While working 
on February 9, 1998, Myers became anxious and experienced shortness of breath.  He left work 
and never returned.  On August 15, 2001, he filed a claim seeking worker’s compensation 
benefits for an occupational disease allegedly arising out of and in the course of his employment.  
He alleged that work-related stress caused him psychiatric disorders, dementia, and Parkinson’s 
disease.  Although Myers was initially represented by counsel, his counsel later withdrew 
because she believed the claim lacked legal merit.  Myers thereafter acted as his own attorney. 
 
The matter was heard by a referee on June 23, 2005, and the parties were then given time 
to submit post-hearing briefs.  On December 29, 2005, the referee issued written findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation.  The referee found that Myers had failed to give 
written notice and to file a claim for benefits within the time limits required by Idaho Code § 72-
448.  The referee found that the alleged occupational disease first manifested on February 9, 
1998.  Three years later, Myers sent his employer a hand-written note stating in part that he 
became sick on the job.  Assuming that the note constituted the required written notice, it was 
untimely.  Idaho Code § 72-448 required that the notice be given within sixty days after the 
manifestation of the alleged occupational disease.  There was also no claim for benefits filed 
with the Industrial Commission within one year after the first manifestation of the alleged 
occupational disease.  Therefore, the referee recommended that the claim be deemed barred by 
Idaho Code § 72-448.  The referee also addressed the merits of the claim and concluded that 
Myers had failed to prove that he suffered an occupational disease. 
 
The Industrial Commission adopted the referee’s findings with respect to the failure to 
comply with the time limits set forth in Idaho Code § 72-448.  It ruled that his claim was barred, 
and it did not address the substantive issues because they were therefore moot. 
 
Myers filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Industrial Commission to consider 
two articles from the internet.  One stated that environmental toxins are suspected of playing a 
role in causing Parkinson’s disease and the other stated that exposure to certain pesticides can 
cause headaches, blurred vision, nausea, convulsions, flu-like symptoms, and seizures, and in 
extreme cases quadriplegia, genetic damage, birth defects, immune-system abnormalities, and 
death.  In his motion for reconsideration, Myers stated that during his employment he was often 
exposed to a pesticide used to kill yellow jackets.  Qwest also filed a motion for reconsideration 
asking the Commission to adopt the referee’s findings as to the merits of Myers’s claim.  The 
Commission denied both motions.  Myers then appealed. 
 
II.  ANALYSIS 
 
The only issue on appeal is whether the Industrial Commission erred in holding that 
Myers’s rights to worker’s compensation were barred by Idaho Code § 72-448.  Myers does not 
challenge the finding that his alleged occupational disease first manifested on February 9, 1998.  
He also does not challenge the findings that he did not comply with the requirements of Idaho 
 
2
Code § 72-448.  He simply states that nobody had ever informed him of the time limits specified 
in that statute. 
 
 “Statutes of limitations are clearly creatures of legislative enactment and not within the 
domain of the judiciary to impose.”  Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill, 111 Idaho 79, 
82, 721 P.2d 179, 182 (1986).  The legislature has provided that statutes of limitations under the 
worker’s compensation law are tolled while the claimant is mentally incompetent or a minor 
dependent without a guardian or next friend.  I.C. § 72-705.  It has also provided that the statutes 
of limitations prescribed in Sections 72-701 and 72-706 are tolled by the employer’s willful 
failure or refusal to file the report required by Idaho Code § 72-602(1).  I.C. § 72-604.  The 
legislature has not provided that the statute of limitations set forth in Idaho Code § 72-448 is 
tolled by the employer’s failure to inform its employees of the requirements of that section.  
Therefore, the Industrial Commission did not err in holding that Myers’s rights to worker’s 
compensation for his alleged occupational disease were barred by his failure to comply with 
Idaho Code § 72-448. 
 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.  We award costs on appeal to the 
respondents. 
 
 
Chief Justice SCHROEDER, and Justices TROUT, BURDICK and JONES CONCUR. 
 
 
3