Opinion ID: 2613102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the commission's material findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent evidence

Text: Pomerinke challenges a number of the Commission's findings of fact. We will not address each of these disputed findings since many are inconsequential in that they have no bearing on the Commission's ultimate conclusions of law. With respect to the disputed findings of fact which are material, we focus on whether substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission's findings. I.C. § 72-732. In assessing whether an order of the Commission should be set aside because it is not supported by substantial and competent evidence, we do not try the matter anew by weighing the evidence and acting akin to a trial court. Monroe v. Chuck & Del's, Inc., 123 Idaho 627, 629-630, 851 P.2d 341, 343-44 (1993). Nor are we concerned with whether this Court would have reached the same conclusion based upon the evidence presented. Id. Instead, our inquiry into the sufficiency of the Commission's factual findings is limited to whether the findings are supported by any substantial and competent evidence. Idaho Const. art. 5, § 9; I.C. § 72-732. Pomerinke challenges the finding by the Commission that he is entitled to a permanent physical impairment rating amounting to twenty percent of the whole person. This rating was formulated by two separate medical panels. Thus, substantial and competent evidence supports this finding. While Drs. Goldberg and Blaisdell formulated higher impairment ratings, this Court will defer to the Commission's findings as to the credibility of conflicting medical experts. Ross v. Tupperware Mfg. Co./Premark, 122 Idaho 641, 643, 837 P.2d 316, 318 (1992). Pomerinke also argues that there is not substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's finding that pain was a component of the medical panel's impairment rating. Although it is not clear from Pomerinke's brief, the apparent point of this argument is that pain should have been included as a non-medical factor in the Commission's award of disability beyond impairment pursuant to I.C. §§ 72-425, -430. The Commission determined the May 16, 1990 panel's impairment rating of twenty percent is appropriate and then concluded: [t]he reports of both medical panels clearly took into account [Pomerinke]'s past complaints of pain, as well as complaints of pain which arose in the course of the physical examinations which the panel members conducted and therefore it is not reasonable to assume [the panels] failed to take pain into account merely because the panels did not specifically designate a portion of the impairment rating as based solely on pain.... Substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission's conclusion that pain was a component of the May 16, 1990 medical panel's impairment rating. The panel concluded that Pomerinke's impairment rating is still recommended as Category III or 20% of the whole man to include the surgery on the cervical spine and the thoracic outlet surgery with scalenotomy and first rib resection on the left. While the foregoing impairment rating did not specify that pain is a component of the rating, the panel report is replete with references to pain. For example, the panel noted, the slightest traction or compression on the neck caused pain and that Pomerinke cannot even drive his car at this time without worsening his right neck and shoulder pain. In addition, the panel report summarizes Pomerinke's medical history which includes repeated complaints of pain and references to pain. The report also lists Pomerinke's Chief Complaints which mostly include complaints of pain and discomfort. Based on the foregoing, we find that there is substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's findings that pain was a component of the May 16, 1990 panel's twenty percent impairment rating.