Opinion ID: 1356284
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission improperly denied L-P's motion for reconsideration.

Text: Idaho Code § 72-506 provides that orders, decisions, or awards made by a referee become orders or decisions of the Commission only when approved or confirmed by the Commission. Idaho Appellate Rule 11(d) provides for appeal [f]rom any final decision or order of the Industrial Commission. Thus, a referee's interlocutory orders are not final orders of the Commission and are not appealable under IAR 11(d). Dehlbom v. State, 129 Idaho 579, 930 P.2d 1021 (1997); Peterson v. Farmore Pump & Irr., 119 Idaho 969, 812 P.2d 276 (1991). In Wheaton v. ISIF, 129 Idaho 538, 928 P.2d 42 (1996), this Court addressed the procedure to obtain an appealable order on matters that were decided by the referee but not addressed in the adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law. In Wheaton, the referee rejected claimant's request to reopen the case to present more evidence. The referee then issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were adopted by the Commission. The adopted findings did not mention the denial of claimant's request to reopen. After noting that the referee's ruling was not an appealable order this Court stated: I.C. § 72-718 provides that within twenty (20) days from the date of filing the [Commission's] decision any party may move for reconsideration or rehearing of the decision, or the commission may rehear or reconsider its decision on its own initiative. This provides a procedure by which a party may seek a ruling by the Commission on a matter decided by a referee that was not confirmed or approved by the Commission in its approval, confirmation, and adoption of the referee's findings and conclusions. Wheaton, at 540, 928 P.2d at 44. To obtain appealable orders, L-P filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to our opinion in Wheaton asking the Commission to address several of the referee's decisions that were not addressed in the adopted findings of fact and conclusion of law. The Commission refused to address the referee's decisions as requested in the motion for reconsideration because L-P had not first adjudicated and received a final order from the Commission on those issues it sought to have reconsidered. This decision effectively rendered the referee's decisions unreviewable because the Commission will not generally hear interlocutory challenges to decisions by the referee and this Court cannot review decisions that have not been adopted by the Commission. Clearly, the appealability of a referee's rulings cannot depend upon the referee's or Commission's decision whether to address a particular ruling in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, we vacate the Commission's decision in this case and remand for consideration of the issues raised in L-P's motion for reconsideration as required by Wheaton.