1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39968
KATHERINE H. HARRIS,

Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Employer, and IDAHO STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety,

Defendants

- Respondents

.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Coeur d’Alene, April 2013 Term
2013 Opinion No. 65

Filed: May 24, 2013
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the Idaho Industrial Commission.

The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed

. Smith & Cannon, PLLC, Lewiston, for appellant. Ned A. Cannon argued.
Mosman Law Offices, Moscow, for respondent. Wynn Mosman argued.

_____________________ J. JONES, Justice.
Katherine Ha rris sought worker s ’ compensation benefits after falling and injuring herself at work in January of 2008. Following a hearing, the Idaho Industrial Commission decided that
Harris was not entitled to disability or medical benefits after February 19, 2008. H arris appealed
to this Court. We affirm.
I. THE FACTUAL RECORD
Harris w as a school bus driver for the Independent School District No. 1 ( Employer ) for approximately 18 years. The accident giving rise to this claim occurred on January 9, 2008. That afternoon, Harris “was just exiting [her] bus” when she fell from the steps. A coworker found her, an ambulance was called, and she was taken to St. Joseph Regional Medical Center in Lewiston (St. Joseph) . At the emergency room, she complained of neck, back, shoulder, and2 knee pain. Furthermore, Harris stated that prior to her fall, “her back [had] been sore for the past couple of days.” Following Harris’ examination at the emergency room, the treating physician noted that “there [was] a little bit of upper thoracic tenderness” and “pain laterally bilaterally in the upper and lower extremities.” The doctor’s impression was that she suffered “a minor neck strain,” and a “knee contusion. ” An X

- ray showed “some straightening of the lordotic curvature” and some “moderate degenerative changes” to her spine. Harris was prescribed thirty hydrocodone pills for pain, ordered to take time off of work, and discharged. After receiving medical trea tment, including pain medication, for nine months following her accident, Harris filed a complaint on October 15, 2008, seeking the full range of workers’ compensation benefits. A hearing was conducted before an Industrial Commission Referee on December 3, 2010. Following the submission of post

- hearing depositions, the Referee issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and R ecommendation on March 7, 2012, and the Commission approved, confirmed, and adopted the same by its O rder filed on April 6, 2012. According to the record developed during the proceedings, Harris’ medical records from before
the accident include d a history of incidents involving back and neck pain an d usage of prescription pain medication.
Harri s was diagnosed with a “[l]ow back strain” in October of 1991 by a doctor who

wrote : Kathy has a long [history] of back pain following [a motor vehicle accident]. She has not really had any problems lately but on Fri night she jumped out of the back of the school bus and jolted hersel f as she hit the ground a little bit [although] she did not fall. On Sat she woke up w/ low back pain and some inner [left] thigh pain. The thigh pain is gone but the back pain is worsening and radiates around to the low [abdomen].

I n November of 1994, Ha rris visited St. Joseph with a complaint of lower back pain, and she was diagnosed with “mechanical lower back pain.” During that examination she recounted that the pain, which was the result of a 1984 motor vehicle accident, “precluded [her from] standing for a prolonged period of time.” And i n 1998, Harris fell and suffered a left shoulder injury, for which she was prescribed hydrocodone.
Harris’ job require d her to complete a Medical Examination Report for Commercial
Driver Fitness Determination. In the “health history” section of her 2003 report, Harris checked a
“Yes” box for the category “ Chronic low back pain.” The medical examiner noted on the same3 form that she had “lowback pain/shoulder pain

. ” And
, in September of the following year, Harris

went t o Express Care in Lewiston, “ complaining of low back pain. ” S he was diagnosed with a
lumbosacral strain and given two days off of work.
In Harris’ 2005 Medical Examination Report, she apparently checked the “Yes” box for
“Ch ronic low back pain
, ” but then crossed it out and checked “No.” In her 2006 Report, Harris checked “Yes” both to “Chronic low back pain” and “Narcotic or habit forming drug use.” “Chronic low back pain” was again checked in Harris’ 2007 Report. During August of the same

year, Harris saw her regular medical care provider, Nurse Practitioner Carmen Stolte at Express Care, complaining of sciatica and requesting “something for pain so she can sleep.” Narcotic pain medication was accordingly prescribed. Harris additionally saw chiro practor Kurt Bailey, D.C., three times in August of 2007. During one of those occasions, he circled “Cervical ” on a
medical form that indicated the patient’s subjective complaints

. Despite this, Bailey later testified
that this did not indicate he treated Harris’ neck and that she did not complain about her neck.
On October 17
, 2007, Stolte saw Harris, who at the time “complain[ed] of back pain, joint pain, stiffness, arthritis.” Harris was taking Darvocet for pain at this time

. Stolte also prescribed Norco, a hy droco done

- based painkiller. Harris saw Stolte again on Novem ber 19 for shoulder and stomach pain, by which time Stolte had discontinued both the Darvocet and the
Norco. The following month, Harris visited St. Joseph for what was diagnosed as a “dental
infe ction,” for which she was prescribed more Norco.
Harris saw Stolte on January 14, 2008, five days after the accident, complaining of neck and lower back pain. She was diagnosed with “[c]ervical and lumbar strain” and was prescribed hydrocodone, muscle relaxers, and physical therapy. An X

- ray taken at this time showed “no obvious fracture” and that her back was normal, except for some “disc degeneration.” She was told that she was off work until the following week. Harris continued to have back pain, which
led to follow

- up visits with Stolte, an addition of Percocet to the already

- prescribed hydrocodone regimen, and physical therapy. Stolte noted at this time that Harris “ still complain[ed] of
inc reased pain after [ physical therapy ] and is now refusing to do some of the exercises.” She was given “no specific return to work date.” About a month later, in early February, cervical and
lumbar MRIs were ordered
, which showed disc degeneration with arthr itis, bone spurs , stenosis, narrowed disc spaces , and disc bulge s . But, as the Referee put it, “[o]ther disc spaces were reported to be normal,” and “[ n ] o acute or traumatic findings were reported .”4 The Idaho State Insurance Fund (Surety) requested that orthopedic surgeon Warren Adams, M.D., evaluate Harris ’ condition . He did so on February 19, 2008. After examining Harris for approxi mately an hour and a half, D r

. Adams noted that his examination “did not identify any objective findings to corroborate her subjective complaints,” that she required no additional treatments, and that there were “no objective fi ndings related to the [ accident] that would preclude her from returning to her pre

- injury positi on as a Bus Driver.” When asked if
Harris had permanent partial impairment due to the accident, D r

. Adams answered , “ N o.” D r

. Adams’ report ended with this comment: The cervical range of motion of Ms. Harris is grossly inconsistent. While under direct observation and request, rotation to the right and to the left was 30 degrees. However, as noted in the physical examination, rotation of her head to the right was 70 degrees and to the left 60 degrees.

His physical examination notes reflected the same:
M s. Harris is a lady not in acute distress. While obtaining her history and subsequent to the physical examination, Ms. Harris is able to move her neck without any sign of hesitation. In particular, she is able to move her neck with rotation to the right of 70 degrees and does this several times while talking to the female chaperone.
Harris continued to see Stolte in February and March of 2008 . On one of these occasions, Stolte noted that: “Kathy states her back is not better. There is really no change. He r family has been bugging her so much about taking pain medica tion that she threw all of her p ercocet away and would like to go back to hydrocodone.” Hydroco done was accordingly prescribed. On April 3, H arris contacted Stolte’s office. T he call summary states : “[Patient] states she was trying to be good and not ask for pain medication, but she spilled her pills in the sink and only has 3 left. [Patient] states she would have had enough to get her through until Tuesday if she had not spilled
them. Needs r efill.” The doctor
, who accordingly prescribed Norco
, “discussed [with Harris her ] concern over quantity of hydrocodone being used.” On April 14, 2008, Nurse Practitioner Stolte contested D r

. Adams’ examination of Harris.
S he opined that Harris had “never had any back pain compared to what she is now having and has never complained of neck pain or numbness an d tingling.” She continued, “T hese problems all began after her fall on 1/9/2008.” Adams responded in turn and maintained that “[a] detailed phy sical examination did not identify any objective find ings of (sic) to corroborate [Harris’ ]5 subjective complaints. Her physical examination did identify non

- physiologic findings as well as inconsistent findings.” On May 2, 2008, Gregory Dietrich, M.D.
, re viewed Harris’ l umbar MRI
, per Stolte’s request , to determine whether Harris was a candidate for surgery

. He concluded that “[s]he certainly does have significant disc disease,” which “would potentially explain her pain,” but that he “[did] not think there is much to consider surgically here .” Approximately one month l ater, Harris visited St. Joseph complaining of increased pain. The physician’s assistant who treated her diagnosed her with lower back pa in

— “ [p] robably acute exacerbation of her chronic
condition.” He further noted: “I have advised the patient that I think she needs some more movement specifically walking. She argues this point quite a bit. She think[s] she should be doing nothing to get be tter.” Harris visited John Demakas, M.D., on June 19 to obtain a second opinion regarding her
need for s urgery. His impression was that Harris “appear [ed] to have certainly pre

- existing degenerative changes in the neck and low back, but it was made symptomatic by the [a ccident ].”
He recommended against surgical intervention, instead ordering a bone scan. After reviewing the scan, he reconfirmed that she wou ld not ben efit from surgery at that time, referring her, instead, to a pain clinic.
Later that month, at the Tri

- State Memorial Hospital (Tri

- State) in Clarkston
, Washington, Harris received two epidu ral steroid injection s for low back and neck pain, which seemed to provide “excellent results” initially, bu t which did not resolve Harris’ neck pain completely. Less than a month later, Harris returned to the St. Joseph emergency room, chiefly complaining of lower back pain and being “ out o f pain meds.” The treating physician noted her back pain, and observed : Because of her increasing pain she has used an increased dose of medication. She has ran out of her Dilaudid and presents today without any pain medicine in the last 24 hours essentially increasing the same pain that she has had for six months. There is no radiation of pain to the extremities , paresthesias or weakness. This is across the low back. No abdominal pain. No other complaints.

She was prescribed thirty tablets of Dilaudid and given an intr amuscular injection of the same. Later in July, Harris received another round o f epidural injections at Tri

- State , this time
in her neck. He r physician noted:6 She indicates that the low

- back pain and the lower extremity radicular pain have improved considerably after the [prior] epidural. Today she has neck pain with a pain level of 4/5 that radiates into both shoulders and down both upper extremities . She informed the nurses that the pain is worse from the neck across t he left shoulder and she informed me that the pain is worse across the right shoulder. When asked to clarify, she states the pain fluctuates between the two sides.
Following the cervical injection, Harris returned for a follow

- up exam , stating that the in itial effectiveness of the epidural had worn off and that she had left shoulder pain and a severe headache. Concerning her headache, the doctor opined : After today’s treatment, it is quite obvious that she has developed hyperalgesia from the Dilaudid, anes thetizing the skin even with conscious sedation produced a great amount of discomfort. I informed her that based upon the hyperalgesia, the Dilaudid itself may be producing her severe headaches, and it would be my suggestion that she be rotated to another pain medication. Perhaps she will get better results.
On October 9, 2008, D r

. Demakas again examined Harris to reevaluate whether she was a proper candidate for surgery. Demakas was informed that the epidural injections only gave
Harris “about 30% relief ” for her lumbar symptom s . H e concluded that “given her lack of response to conservative treatment, we are probably looking at some type of a cervical surgery.” On December 24, 2008, Harris and Stolte executed a “Patient Contract Regarding
Chronic Narcotic Use for Non

- Malignant Pain.” It states: I [Katherine Harris] am entering into a contract with Dr. Carmen Stolte regarding the prescription of chronic narcotics for my pain. I understand that if I break this agreement the narcotic therapy may be discontinue d immediately by this physician. If this happens, I understand that other physicians at Valley Medical Center are not likely to continue this therapy.
I have agreed to the following conditions:

1. I must make monthly appointments with the above physician or clinic. This will be a scheduled appointment, not a walk in appointment.

2. There will be no change in my prescription over the phone or between regular monthly visits. This includes replacement of lost/stolen prescriptions. I will appear in person and will not be allowed to change the dose of my narcotic without prior authorization from the above physician.

. . . . 5. Only one physician will be able to prescribe narcotics at any given time. I understand that the above named physician has agreed to p rovide this treatment.7 Within one month
, Harris returned to the St. Joseph emergency room complaining of pain and requesting narcotics. Harris averred that she ran out of medication early, which had occurred in the past, and expressed that “[s]he [was] quite concerned about withdrawal symptoms.” The physician’s assistant and Harris then had a “very frank discussion” regarding “how much she was overutilizing her medication” and how prescribing additional narcotics would void the

contrac t she just signed. Harris “indicated that her husband tends to set aside the medications so she will not o ver use them. ” Harris was then given medication “to try to stave off some of her
withdrawal.” This was a breach of the narcotic

- use agreement between Stolte and Harris, which
Stolte discussed in a subsequent examination: [Harris] overtook her narcotics last month and now her husband is having to control these at home. I did discuss her narcotics agreement with her and notified her that the fact that she asked fo r an early refill and then went to the ER were both grounds for patient dismissal. She states that she now understands that and is hopeful that that will not happen. I did tell her that she would be given one more opportunity, but that she must ab ide by the agreement. Harris continued to see Stolte for neck and back pain in 2009. She also continued to use narcotics for pain, which prompted her husband to speak with D r

. Demakas’ staff in March.
Harris’ husband stated his concern “about how much pain medication [she was] taking . He said
she took 70 Dilaudid in 3 days.” And
, on April 11 of that year, Harris presented at the Bog a chiel
Clinic in Forks, Washington
, requesting pain medication. Harris stated t hat she was in town for
her father’s funeral and that half of her Demerol h ad been lost or stolen from her luggage, which

s h e did not report to police. The Clinic checked local pharmacies and discovered that Harris had
received ninety Soma pills two days prior while in Washington . N evertheless, she was prescribed forty hydrocodone pills by the treating nurse practitioner who expressed concern about prescribing Demerol

. Five days later Harris returned to Express Care in Lewiston, where she again s tated that her medication had been stolen and requested “Hydrocodone instead [of
Demerol ] as she [was] having ‘ withdrawls .’” (sic)

. Hydrocodone was denied and her Demerol prescription was refilled. Two days later, Harris returned to Express Care, where she talked to Stolte’s supervisor
, Vicky Lott, M.D. , who described the encounter thus : Kathy presents to Express Care today with complicated complaint of having her narcotics stolen twice in the past week when she was flying t hrough Sea

- Tac A irport . . . . She gives a long and complicated story about taking some grass out of her overnight bag, that is a forty year tradition that she and her family have, her8 father recently died, etc., etc. She is quite tangential and goes on about the “stupid nasty plane flight.” . . . She is very concerned about withdrawing . . . . Patient states that she must have more Demerol immediately or she will withdraw. She states if I do not give it to her she will have to go to the emergency department . . . . Patien t is quite tangential, talks about all of her pain syndromes. She talks about why her husband doles out her medication to her. Her husband did not go on this flight with her. She flew by herself, stayed with her mom and sister, and her mother and sister

we re supposed to be managing her medications. They were apparently “checking” them and counting them while the patient was asleep.
After a “very long discussion” with Harris and her husband, D r

. Lott prescribed fourteen
Demerol table t s and “[a]dvised [Harri s] specifically, clearly and repeatedly that I would not give her any fur ther narcotics, no exceptions.”
Harris again met with D r

. Demakas on May 14, and his impression was that she suffered from “[c]ontinued degenerative disc disease

. . . with neck and arm pain.” He p erformed neck surgery on June 10 , 2009. Thereafter, h er symptoms appeared to initially resolve, but then return

. In August of 2010 1 Harris told Stolte that “her low back pain is getting worse all the time. She can now not stand long enough t o even apply her make up or do her hair in the mornings. ” Harris
also continued to report headaches. At the request of the Sure ty, Harris was examined by Jeffrey Larson, M.D. on August 17,
2010. He noted that Harris complained of severe neck pain, lower b ack pain, numbness and pain in her extremities, incontinence, and headaches. The headaches and numbness, she alleged, were new symptoms that resulted from the neck surg ery. Dr. Larson further noted that D r

. Demakas was recommending a secon d surgery, this time on Harris’ lower back, “but that the surgery is being denied by Worker ’ s Comp. and that she no longer has her own health insurance.” Dr.
Larson diagnosed Harris with a minor neck strain
, minor lumbar strain, degenerative disc
disease
, and chronic lowe r back pain. He opined that the neck and lumbar strains were “casually (sic) related” to the accident at issue, and that she had “reached maximum medical improvement” for the symptoms stemming from the accident. Dr. Larson further opined that the neck surg ery “relate[d] to chronic degenerative disc disease and not to the industrial injury of January 9 2008. Ms. Harris has a multitude of subjective complaints that

. . . are not likely to improve with surgery. ” He concluded that Harris was “medically stable o f the industrial accident

1 This was the most recent visit to Stolte found in the record.9 of January 9, 2008,” and that “[t]here is no permanent partial impairment rating for either neck
strain or lower back strain.” On the other hand, D r

. Robert Co l burn performed an independent medical evaluation that
was at odds with D r

. Larson’s findings. After reviewing Harris’ medical history and examining her, he made the following diagnosis : 1. F all on 1/9/08 with sprain injury, cervical and lumbar spine. 2. Degenerative disc disease, cervical spine, preexis ting 1/9/08 but asymptomatic

. 3. Chronic cervical pain secondary to aggravation of number t wo above by the fall on 1/9/08. Status is post anterior disc excision and fusion [the neck surgery]. 4. Degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine, preexisting and symptomatic prior to 1/9/08. 5. Chronic lumbar pain, secondary to an aggravation or perhaps better described as acceleration of number four by the fall on 1/9/08.
In other words, he thought that the degenerative disc disease existed before the accident, but that the “subsequent pain and radicular symptoms were a result of that injury aggravating” it. Dr.
Colburn also thought that Harris’ neck surgery was indeed necessary , the accident having

aggr avated her preexisting condition . He further opined that “of [Harris’] current low back
situation one

- half is related to the preexisting condition and one

- half to the effects of the injury
of 1/9/08 ” ; she was not yet at maximum medical improvement; and she might need another surgery for her lumbar condition. Based upon his consideration of this record, the Referee determined that Harris had reached maximum medical improvement on February 19, 2008. The Referee’s f indings focused

on Harris’ credibility and the extent to which she was entitled to medical care due to the accident. With respect to the former, the Referee found that: [Harris ’ ] credibility is significantly established by her relatively long work history and good work record with Employer. At hear ing, she showed that she was physically uncomfortable whether the focus was or was not upon her. However, Claimant is an inconsistent historian. Contemporaneously made medical records are deemed to be of greater weight than Claimant’s memory of her pains, condition, or other medical history. Moreover, her variable reporting of where and how much she hurt tends to undercut the weight to be attached to her subjective complaints. Finally, Claimant’s “addictive tendency” opens the door to the question of second ary gain in the form of continuing her prescription s for narcotic pain medication.
In particular, the Referee found that Harris’ consistent “focus upon obtaining narcotic pain medication” and her “suspiciously timely” accident

— which occurred soon after St olte10 discontinued a prescription for narcotics

— damaged her credibility. Given that D r

. Colburn’s, Chiropractor Bailey’s, and Nurse Practitioner Stolte’s opinion s were largely based on Harris’ subjective , and potentially disingenuous, complaints of pain, the Referee concluded that they therefore rested on a “shaky foundation.” Regarding benefits, the Referee found that Harris “unquestionably suffered an accident and injury when she fell from the bus steps on January 9, 2008. That injury has been consisten tly
described as a cervical and lumbar strain.” However, given Harris’ preexisting back and neck problems , he further found that
, all her complaints “ were easily compatible with her degenerative conditions in her spine and externalities.” He concluded that “[a]t no time did any diagnostic imaging or examination testing show a truly objective basis upon which to ascribe an acute

trauma as the likely cause of [Harris’ ] complaints.” The Referee therefo re recommended that Harris was entitled to temporary total disability and medical care benefits to February 19, 2008, 2 but not beyond that, because she “failed to show it likely her injury accelerated, exacerbated, or lit up any underlying degenerative condition that existed before the industrial accident.” The
In dustrial Commission agreed and issued an Order to this effect on April 6 , 2012

. I I. ISSUES ON APPEAL
I. Did the Referee err in determining that Harris lacked substantive credibility? II. Did the Referee err by concluding that Harris was only entitled to benefits for care provided through February 19, 2008 ? III. Is Harris entitled to attorney fees?
III. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review

. This Court’s posture for reviewing Industrial Commission decisions is set forth in Henderson v. McCain Foods, Inc. , 142 Idaho 559, 565, 130 P.3d 1097, 1103 (2006):
I t is the role of the Industrial Commission, not this Court, to determine the weight and credibility of testimony and to resolve conflicting interpretations of testimony. On appeal, this Court will not conduct a de novo review o f the evidence or consider whether it would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence presented. This Court will not disturb the Commission ’ s factual findings if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence

. Substantial

2 February 19, 2008 , was the day D r

. Adams evaluated Harris and determined that, though she suffer ed from prior back pain, there were “ no objective findings with respect to the incident of 1/09/08” and that she could return to work. The Commission’s original order mistakenly stated that Harris was entitled to benefits up until “February, 19, 2009,” but this error was later corrected in th e Commission’s Erratum of April 26, 2012.11 and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.
Id. (citations omitted). However , “[ w] hether the Commission correctly applied the law to the
facts is an issue of law over which we exercise free revie w.” Pierce v. Sch. Dist. No. 21
, 144 Idaho 537, 538, 164 P.3d 817, 818 (2007) (quoting Konvalinka v. Bonneville C nty

. , 1 40 Idaho 477, 478, 95 P.3d 628, 629 (2004 ) )

. Further, the Commission’s determinations “ on the weight and credibility of the evidence should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly

erroneous .” Zapata v. J.R. Simplot Co. , 132 Idaho 513, 515, 975 P.2d 1178, 1180 (1999).
B. The Referee correctly concluded that Harris lacked substantive credibility.
The Referee determined that because of Harris’ inconsisten cies in describing her symptoms and her seeming “addictive tendencies, ” that she lacked substantive credibility. Harris vigorously contests this on appeal, stating that the Referee “ personally diagnosed Mrs. Harris
with a prescription drug addiction” and that he erred by deducing that Harris “ possibly staged her injury [and] was ‘faking’ the symptoms in order to acquire more medication.” Respondents

counter that the record contained “substantial, indisputable evidence of [H arris’ ] drug seeking behavior,” as well as an array of evidence as to her inconsistent, and at times, contradictory, description of her pain and symptoms. They argue that substantial and competent evidence supports the credibility finding. “Determining th e credib ility of witnesses and evidence ” is within the province of the
Industrial Commission. Moore v. Moore , 152 Idaho 245, 254, 269 P.3d 802, 811 (2011 ). This
Court has split its review of credibility determinations into two categories: observational credibility, and substantive credibility. Id. The former “goes to the demeanor of the [witness] on the witness stand and it requires that the Commission actually be present for th e hearing in order to judge it.” Id. “[S] ubstantive credibility may be judged on the grounds of numerous inaccuracies or conflicting facts and does not require the presence of the Commission at the hearing.” Id. If the Commission’s credibility findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence, we will not disturb them. Id. We have upheld Commission findings of lack of substantive credibility where a claimant makes inconsistent statements regarding the industrial accident and the symptoms resulting
therefrom. For example, in Painter v. Potlatch Corp.
, 138 Idaho 309, 314, 63 P.3d 435, 440 (2003)
, we upheld the Commission’s s ubstantive credibility findings where :12 [ Painter
, the employee] did not adequately explain why he recorded the alleged incidents on his calendar on the days they occurred but did not report them to his doctors or to his Employer until weeks later. [Painter] never reported the details of the incidents to co

- workers. At one point, [Painter] testified that he was uncertain about the location of the forms for “major” versus “minor” incidents, but Employer has only one form and makes no such distinction. Finally, inconsistencies exist between [Painter ’ s] initial workers ’ co mpensation claim and his later testimony describing the incidents.

138 Idaho at 314, 63 P.3d at 440

. The discrepancies found in the employee’s description of the
accident thus led this Court to conclude that “substantial, credible evidence supported the
Commission’ s finding that” Painter lacked credibility. Id. A similar set of inconsistencies were present in Moore : First and foremost, Claimant, in his answers to various interrogatories verified under oath, claimed that after the accident, he “did not resume work until 11/26/07,” and that “in 2006, and almost all of 2007, [he] could not work in any capacity.” However, Claimant later admitted, during the second hearing, that he operated his tire business in 20 06 and 2007. Additionally, Moore Enterprises ’ business records indicate that Claimant continued to do business as an independent contractor very shortly after the accident. More specifically, Moore Enterprises ’ check ledgers demonstrate that on May 20, 200 5, Claimant was paid $250 as an independent contractor, and beginning in July of 2005, through June of 2006, Claimant was paid several thousands of dollars as an independent contractor doing business as Morecedes Tire. Moreover, Claimant obtained an acting job as an extra in July of 2005, flew to California for an audition in January of 2006, and obtained various other acting jobs up through October of 2007. Claimant also testified during his deposition and in his verified answers to interrogatories that Wi lliam had agreed to pay him $12.00 per hour for his work, but later testified that William had agreed to pay him $350 per week, which equals $8.75 per hour for a 40

- hour week. Also, when William filled out his First Report of Injury or Illness, he left bla nk the portion of the form indicating the Claimant ’ s wage, which further supports the Commission ’ s conclusion that there was no agreement between Claimant and Moore Enterprises regarding wages as Claimant had testified.
152 Idaho at 255, 269 P.3d at 812. Based on these inconsistencies
, we again determined that the Commission had correctly concluded that the employee’s testimony lacked substantive credibility. Id. On the other hand, where employees claiming workers ’ compensation have proffered
consistent

— though not identical

— testimonies , this Court has held that they have substantive credibility. For instance, in Stevens

- McAtee v. Potlatch Corp. , 145 Idaho 325, 329, 179 P.3d 288
,13 292 (2008) , an employee initially gave a vague account of a forklift accident, but later “‘improved’ or ‘enhanced’” his testimony at hearing by adding a specific detail― that while driving the forklift, he hit a drain ditch

. The Commission felt that this addition was a substantial change that damaged his credibility

. Id. We disagreed because, “[a]lthough [the employee’s] descriptions as to the cause of his injury were more vague prior to oral hearing,” he “ consistently maintained that his injury arose from the jostling and vibrations of his forklift.” Id. at 331, 179
P.3d at 294. In th e face of this consistency, the Court held the Commission incorrectly concluded that the employee’s testimony “differed substantially” at hearing. Id. Here, we conclude that the Commission had substantial, competent evidence that Harris
lacked s ubstantive credibility. The Commission’s credibility finding was predicated on its
conclusion that Harri s wa s an “inconsistent historian ” o f the accident and her symptoms. T he
record is replete with Harris’ contradictions

— contradictions regarding how the accident occurred, her health history, and her symptoms

. For example, at the hearing Harris testified that she had not been suffering any physical problems when she arrived at work on the day of her fall. However, her supervisor’s report noted that she was experiencing “lower back pain earlier in the [morning]” on the day of the accident, and the initial hospital evaluation on the day of the accident indicates she “said her back has been sore for the past couple of days.” The initial repor t indicated she was complaining of upper back, neck, and right knee pain but no lower back pain. However, five days later she began complaining of lower back pain. Harris initially stated that she did not believe she lost
consciousness after the fall
, but approximately five months later, she reported that she did not “recall the circumstances [of the fall] and thinks she was knocked unconscious.” Harris’ conflicting recitals regarding the accident and her resulting symptoms are less like the
clarifications in Stevens

- McAtee , and more like the inconsistencies found in Painter and Moore

. Although some discrepancies in recounting a traumatic accident might be understandable,
Harris also inconsistently stated her subjective accounts of pain and did so months after the
accident

— there is evidence of Harris reporting pain in one location to nurses, but in a different
location to the doctor . There is also evidence of her displaying a limited range of neck motion while being examined, but moving her neck “w ithout any hesitation” while not being directly
examined

. Moreover, Harris gave inconsistent testimony regarding her prior medical history and
the extent to which it affected her work

. For example, Harris first testified at the hearing that she14 only once missed work on doctor’ s orders
, then contradicted herself by testifying that she missed
“more than a month” of work for a different injury

. Harris’ involvement with prescription medications―her drug seeking, consumption of medication in a way that concern ed family and caregivers alike, and violation of agreed

- to

- limitations on obtaining prescription drugs― also provided grounds for questioning her substantive credibility.
This last issue

— Harris’ apparent struggle with prescription narcotics , and its bearing on
this case

— is the root of Harris’ contention that the Referee improperly “diagnose[d] a prescription

- drug addiction ” and consequently improperly “extrapolate[d] from a drug addiction that an injury was faked in order to obtain medication.” Harris cites Industrial Commission
decisions for the proposition that only trained professionals’ opinion s , or a documented history of abuse, could support such diagnose s. S ee A ngela Freeborg v. Target Stores
, I ndus. C omm’n
2005

- 835 (2009 WL 5850540); Henderson v. Alliant Techs ystems, Inc. , I ndus. C omm’n 2002

- 013729 (2007 WL 4299187). But these arguments are unavailing. T he Referee never “diagnosed” Harris with an addiction , nor would he need to in order to make a judgment call regarding credibility . H e merely found that, given Harris’ admitted struggles with pai n killers and admitted fears of withdrawal, her statements regarding subjective pain

— which would directly
affect her access to more narcotics

— were naturally less credible

. And
, t he Referee never
conclu ded that Harris was “faking” it. I nstead, he cited the “surprisingly frank” opinio n of one
d octor who indeed thought Harris was faking her symptoms to some extent

. 3 The Referee , acting
for the Commission, had the role of determining credibility. And he concluded

— given Harris’
conceded issues with narcotics, the frank testimony of D r

. Larso n, and the other inconsistencies regarding the accident

— that Harris lacked substantive credibility when it came to her subjective statements of pain . Accordingly, the Referee reasoned, doctors whose diagnoses rested on those subjective statements w ere less credible

.

3 Dr. Larson gave that opinion in the following colloquy:
Q

. [Harris’ Counsel] : Do you think she’s faking? A

. [Dr. Larson] : Yes. Q. So you think that all of her complaints are not true. A. Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say all of her complaints are not true. I think they’re

— Q. She’s faking, you said. What do you mean when you said you think she’s faking? A. I think she is exaggerating extensively, as she did with me, telling me that Dr. Demakas did surgery because she couldn’t move her

— had no strength in her upper extremities when there’s no record showing that, and I’m just supposed to accept that, just like I’m supposed to accept that [Chiropractor] Bailey’s records didn’t really exist

.15 I t bears mentioning that Harris’ use of medication also affected her substantive credibility
in another sense: both Harris and her husband noted that the medication she was taking was affecting her during the Industrial Commission hearing. She testified that the narcotics made it “hard for [her] to remember things” that day, and her husband concurred that she was “not
coherent” when medicated. Harris also told the Referee that she had taken four hydr ocodone pills before the 9:30 a.m. hearing. Given Harris ’ concession s that hydrocodone affected her memory
and that she had taken it before testifying , the Referee had further reason to consider the issue of narcotics when weighing her credibility.
This Co urt need not , and emphatically does not, weigh in on whether Harris was in fact addicted, or whether she “ faked ” her subjective complaints of pain

. Teasing out these factual questions , and weighing credibility, was the job of the Commission. It should also be mentioned
that
, while the Re feree did not conclude Harris faked her accident , he intimated as much. This

was unnecessary. No one, including the Referee, disputed that the accident occurred

— the question before the Commission was the severity of the resultant injuries. Evidence of narcotics abuse and a doctor’s frank testimony might affect Harris’ credibility and lead to concl usions that subject ive complaints were exaggerated, but further speculating that there was potential “stockpiling” or “rationing” occurring, or that the timing of undisputed events was “suspicious
, ”

was gratuitous and inappropriate . Though these statements do not affect our conclusion today, there were no grounds to support them, and they should not have been made.
N evertheless, g i ven the substantial
, competent evidence that supported the Referee’s
conclusion that Harris struggled with prescription narcotic overuse , his conclusion that her credibility was accordingly affected was not error. We thus conclude that the Commission did not err in finding that Harris lacked substantive credibility.
C. The Commission did not err in concluding that Harris was only enti tled to benefits for care provided up to February 19, 2008

. The Commission adopted the Referee’s opinion that Harris was “entitled to [temporary total disability] and medical care benefits to February 19, [ 2008 ] , and for palliative medical care benefits to the extent already paid for by Defendants.” F ebruary 19 was the date of D r

. Adams’
examination of Harris , where he determined that Harris required no further treatment fo r her
accident

- related injuries and was able to return to work . T he Commission concluded that16 following the exam, “ E mployer had a reasonable basis for discontinuing medical care benefits and for discontinuing [temporary total disability].” Harris argues that the selection of February 19 as a cut

- off date was arbitrary and that the Referee did not “fairly consider the evidence before him
, ” which showed Harris was entitled to continued medical care past that date. Harri s argues that the conclusions of several of her health care providers

— namely, Nurse Practitioner Stolte, D r

. Demakas, Chiropractor Bailey, and D r

. Colburn

— proves that she continued to have accident

- related symptoms after February 19 . Harris
contends that this evidence and testimony “was either not considered, or interpreted by Referee Donohue as a scheme to get prescription medications.” The Respondent s agree with the Commission, and assert that with respect to Harris’ neck pain, her various treatmen ts have not
resulted in any improvement. R egarding her lu mbar condition, they argue that it was preexisting
, and thus no t related to the industrial injury. The Respondents thus conclude that additional treatment, for either condition, is not reasonable. Injured workers are entitled to disability benefits “during ‘the period of recovery.’” I.C. §§ 72

- 408 , 72

- 423 ; Hernandez v. Phillips , 141 Idaho 779 , 781, 118 P.3d 111, 113 (2005). This Court has found that this period “ends when the worker is medically sta ble.” Hernandez , 141
Idaho at 781, 118 P.3d at 113 (citing Jarvis v. Rexburg Nursing Ctr

. , 136 Idaho 579, 586, 38 P.3d 617, 624 (2001) , noting that “medical stability” is synonymous with “maximum medical improvement”). Likewise, the Idaho Code obligates employers to: [ P ] rovide for an injured employee such reasonable medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital services, medicines, crutches and apparatus, as may be reasonably required by the employee ’ s physician or needed immediately after an injury or manifestation of an occupational disease, and for a reasonable time thereafter.
I.C. § 72

- 432(1) . This Court has clarified that medical care is “ reasonable ” when: (1) the claimant made gradual improvement from the treatment received; (2) the treatment was required by the claimant ’ s physician; and (3) the treatment received was within the physician ’ s standard of practice and the charges for the treatment were fair, reasonable, and similar to charges in the same profession.

Ma gee v. Thompson Creek Mining Co. , 142 Idaho 761, 766, 133 P.3d 1226, 1231 (2006) (quoting Jarvis , 136 Idaho at 585, 38 P.3d at 623 ). Here, substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission’s conclusion that
Harris reached medical stability for the injury she suffered from her accident

. S ubstantial and17 competent evidence likewise supports its finding that Harris failed “to show it likely her injury

a ccelerated, exacerbated, or lit up any underlying degenerative conditions that existed before the
industrial accident

. ” As noted above
, the initial diagnosis following the accident was that Harris
suffered a “ minor neck strain. ” Other evaluations soon thereafter showed the same. D r

. Adams
examined Harris at length and determined that whil e she indeed suffered an injury, she had no permanent impairment and required no additional treatment

. 4 D r

. Larso n subsequently evaluated Harris and concluded that she “reached maximum medical improvement from her industrial injury” and that her “[r] esidual subjective complaints, without any objective findings, relate to her pre

- existing degenerative disc findings in the cervical and lumbar spine .” Those experts who opined differently based their diagnoses largely upon Harris’ subjective statements of her pain,

or on incomplete information regarding her medical history

. Further , there is evidence that the symptoms Harris developed following her neck surgery have not improved with treatment or , in
the c a se of her headaches, migh t have more to do with her pain medication than the accident . I n either event, continued medical care would not be reasonable. In sum, the Referee based his recommendation on substantial, competent , even though conflicting
, evidence and the
Commission’s Order was based on the same

. On appeal Harris essentially does nothing more than ask this Court to reweigh the facts,
and deem her experts more credible

. 5 And
, her experts indeed disagreed with the conclu sions of

4 Harris argues that Dr. Adams is a “hired gun” fo r employers and their sureties and she does provide some anecdotal support for this contention. Unfortunately, the existence and usage of hired guns in workers’ compensation cases is not uncommon. But Har ris presents no evidence that Dr. Adams’ conclusions in this particular case were influenced by any bias in favor of employers or sureties . We accordingly find that the Commission did not err in accepting his conclusions. 5 Harris does argue that the Commission erred in relying on Dr. Larson’s deposition testimony that she was symptomatic for cervical injury prior to her accident. S he argues that his opinion was erroneously “based on circles on a form from Chiropractor Baile y’s office [that seemed to indicate Harris had cervical complaints] .” She further argues that these circles, like the checked box es on a medical form at issue in Stevens

- McAtee v. Potlatch Corp ., 145 Idaho 325, 179 P.3d 288, (2008), are inherently ambiguou s. Thus, she concludes, “it was error for the [Commission] to rely on Dr. Larson’s opinions when those opinions were founded on ambiguous circles on another doctor’s medical form.” But this argument is unpersuasive, as t he record shows that Larson formed h is opinion regarding Harris’ neck symptoms based on more than Bailey’s records

. During his deposition, Larson discussed his physical examination of Harris, his discussion of her prior medical records, and his ultimate conclusion that she reached maximum me dical improvement

— all without referencing the “circles” on Chiropractor Bailey’s forms

. Dr. Larson further testified that records other than Bailey’s led him to his conclusion regarding Harris’ neck symptoms and that beyond Bailey’s medical records, the records of Nurse Practitioner Stolte, discrepancies in Harris’ physicals, and his

own physical examination of Harris all led to his opinion that she had neck symptoms prior to the accident

. Thus
, whether or not th e Commission erred by relying on Larson’s opinions stemming from circles on a form , there was still competent evidence that supported his evaluation, and the Commission’s conclusion s

.18 Doctors Adams and Larso n. 6 Nevertheless, the Commission found Harris’ experts less credible.
A nd this Court has stated time and time again that it will “not disturb ” such findings regarding credibility if they are supported by substantial
, competent evidence. Hend erson , 142 Idaho at 565, 130 P.3d at 1103 . Nor does this Court “consider whether it would have reached a different
conclus ion from the evidence presented, ” which is precisely what Harris seeks on appeal

. Id. Finally, this Court has stated that:
Because we do not have jurisdiction to reweigh the evidence or rule upon the credibility of witnesses, arguments that appear to ask us to do so will be construed, if possible, as intending to raise an issue of law. If they cannot be so constru ed, they will not be add ressed.
Fife v. Home Depot, Inc. , 151 Idaho 509, 513, 260 P.3d 1180, 1184 (2011)

. Because Harris’ appeal, at root, essentially asks this Court to reexamine the evidence, and find her experts more credible, as a fundamental matter we decline to do so.
G iven the substantial, competent evidence that support s the Commission’s decision
, we affirm it s order on appeal

. D. Harris is not entitled to attorney fees

. Harris finally argues that the Commission “abused its discretion in failing to award” her attorney fees and costs pursuant to I .C. § 72

- 804. Harris also contends that she is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal, “because [Employer and Surety] have refused to pay workers’ compensation benefits without reasonable ground s to do so.”

6 It bears mentioning that the conduct of the attorneys on this appeal was in the best traditions of the legal profession. When it appeared during the course of the appeal that Dr. Larson’s deposition was not included in the record, counsel for Harris stipulated to augment it into the record. One of Harris’ treating physician, Dr. Demakas, had indicated on a post

- hearing note that “I agree with Dr. Larson.” It is obvious from the record that the two physicians had widely divergent views regarding Harris’ condition and need for furth er treatment. Harris sought to include in the record a supplement to Dr. Demaka s’ records to clarify the contex t of the post

- hearing note and to explain the issue to which it pertained. The Referee declined to allow the supplement ation into evidence. On ap peal, Harris requested the Court to order the admission of the supplement ation . The appro priate course for counsel to take would have been to object to the exclusion of the letter and claim i t s exclusion as error on appeal. However, at the oral argument on appeal, when asked if he would stipulate to the augmentation of the supplement ation into the record, respondent’s counsel graciously did so, noting Harris’ counsel’s agreement regarding Dr. Larson’s deposition. The collegiality of both counsel allowed thi s Court to more fully consider this matter and is a fine example of members of the Bar not only “having special responsibility for the quality of justice,” but acting accordingly. Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble [1].
While the supplement cl arifies Dr. Demakas’ post

- hearing note, we are still left with conflicting medical opinions
, which boil down to factual disputes that are in the province of the Commission. Dr. Demakas ’ agreement or disagreement with Dr. Larson does not change the conclusi on that substantial, competent evidence supports the Commission’s determination.19 The Idaho Code allows awards of reasonable attorney fees when employers “without reasonable grounds discontinued payment of compensation” owed to disabled workers. I.C. § 72

- 804. Harris’ sole basis for requesting fees is simply that the termination of bene fits was
unreasonable

. Because we uphold the Commission’s decision, a fee award is not warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Commission’s order and award costs on appeal to Respondents.

Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices EISMANN, W. JONES and HORTON CONCUR.