Opinion ID: 1197860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the district court erred in denying the appellants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Text: The appellants argue that under Van Time v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 126 Idaho 688, 889 P.2d 717 (1994), the Complaint is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. We agree. In Van Tine we considered whether a suit filed in district court by a worker's compensation claimant against his employer's surety, for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. We held that the district court properly dismissed the Van Tine's complaint because the Van Tine's claims arose under the worker's compensation law. Van Tine, 126 Idaho at 690, 889 P.2d at 719. Van Tine set forth the test for determining whether a district court has jurisdiction over a complaint filed by a worker's compensation claimant against an employer or an employer's surety; if there is any provision under the worker's compensation law under which the alleged claim could be said to arise, the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction. Id. at 689, 889 P.2d at 718. The Van Tine test was premised upon Idaho Code § 72-707, which vests the Commission with exclusive jurisdiction over [a]ll questions arising under the worker's compensation law, and the fact that the Commission has jurisdiction over an employer's surety, if the Commission has jurisdiction over that employer. Id. at 689, 889 P.2d at 718. Idaho Code § 72-804 provides that if the Commission or a court determines that an employer has contested a claim for compensation without reasonable grounds, an employer shall be required to pay reasonable attorney fees. Id. at 689-90, 889 P.2d at 718-19. In White v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 94, 730 P.2d 1014 (1986), we held that in order to have a cause of action for bad faith breach of an insurance contract, a claimant must allege the element of intentional and unreasonable denial of insurance benefits. White, 112 Idaho at 98, 730 P.2d at 1018. In Van Tine we observed that in order for a claimant to state a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against an employer's surety, the claimant must allege an intentional and unreasonable denial or delay in payment of worker's compensation benefits, pursuant to the elements set forth in White. Van Tine, 126 Idaho at 690, 889 P.2d at 719. The first consideration for determining jurisdiction, requires an analysis of the type of conduct the claimant is alleging. Id. at 689, 889 P.2d at 718. In Van Tine, we stated, [t]o the extent that the Van Tines allege that SIF contested claims for compensation without reasonable ground ... their claims arise under I.C. § 72-804.... Id. at 689, 889 P.2d at 718 (emphasis added). If a claimant's allegations relate explicitly to a defendant's allegedly intentional and unreasonable denial of benefits to which the claimant was entitled, the claims relate implicitly to the premises for an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-804, and consequently present questions arising under Idaho Code § 72-804. Id. at 690, 889 P.2d at 719. The Van Tine analysis is not limited to simply the title of a cause of action, but rather focuses on the type of conduct alleged by the claimant against an employer or an employer's surety. The Complaint alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and common law fraud. The Complaint specifically alleged that Industrial Indemnity unreasonably and intentionally ... withheld contract benefits due [Walters] and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by its actions. The Complaint further alleged that: 1. The defendants entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of intentionally cutting off chiropractic treatments which the defendants knew Walters needed, 2. as part of that conspiracy, defendant Doty represented herself as Walters's rehabilitation nurse working for and on behalf of Walters, in order to convince Walters's doctor to buy into a home exercise plan in lieu of chiropractic treatments, 3. the defendants failed to provide a medically necessary and prescribed hospital bed to Walters, 4. the defendants asserted defenses to Walters's claims the defendants knew were without basis in fact, frivolous, and without merit, with the intent to deprive Walters of compensation and benefits to which Walters was entitled, 5. the defendants failed to provide a reasonable explanation within the terms of the insurance contract, for the defendants' denial of Walters's claims for benefits, 6. the defendants did not attempt to promptly settle in good faith Walters's claim for benefits, 7. the defendants attempted to pressure Walters into accepting a lesser amount in settlement. All of these allegations in the Complaint were premised upon the allegedly tortious denial and efforts of the appellants to discontinue the worker's compensation benefits Walters claimed he was entitled to. The Complaint alleged Industrial Indemnity intentionally and unreasonably denied worker's compensation benefits. Thus, the claims alleged in the Complaint arose under the worker's compensation law and consequently were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. Van Tine, 126 Idaho at 690, 889 P.2d at 719. The appellants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) should have been granted. Since we reverse the district court's finding of subject matter jurisdiction, we do not consider whether the district court erred in denying the appellants' motions to dismiss pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and (8). The respondents did not raise any constitutional challenges to the exclusive remedy provisions of Idaho's worker's compensation law, until this appeal. We will not consider constitutional issues that have been raised for the first time on appeal. Buffington v. Potlatch Corp., 125 Idaho 837, 839-40, 875 P.2d 934, 936-37 (1994). Consequently, we will not consider the respondents' constitutional challenges raised in this appeal.