Opinion ID: 1388739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Powers of Board

Text: Sec. 60. All questions arising under this Act, if not settled by agreement of the parties interested therein, with the approval of the [Industrial Accident] Board, shall, except as otherwise herein provided, be determined by the Board. 1917 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 81, § 60, p. 275. In 1937, this provision was amended to read: All questions arising under this Act, if not settled by agreement or stipulation of the parties interested therein, with the approval of the board, shall, except as otherwise herein provided, be determined by the board. 1937 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 175, § 3, p. 290 (amendment in italics). The statute was codified in this form as part of I.C. § 72-613 in 1947. Idaho Code, vol. 11, p. 390 (1947). In 1956, this Court cited I.C. § 72-613 in deciding Thompson v. Liberty Nat'l Ins. Co .: The Industrial Accident Board's jurisdiction is created by statute. As between claimant in an industrial accident case, the employer and the surety, the Board has jurisdiction to determine the liability, if any, to claimant and enter an award against employer and the surety. Sec. 72-613, I.C. 78 Idaho at 384, 304 P.2d at 911. In Thompson, the Court held that the board did not have jurisdiction to determine whether a surety insured the workers' compensation liability of the employer, where the employer had already paid the claimant the benefits awarded by the board: The controversy here is not one in which the injured work[er] is in anywise interested. The liability having been paid by the employer prior to the Industrial Accident Board hearing, the contract relationship of the employer and the surety was no longer a subject of controversy for the Board to determine. The liability, if any, of the surety was a matter based on a contract and under the facts here presented determinable only in a court of competent jurisdiction, not by the Industrial Accident Board. At the time of the hearing before the Industrial Accident Board on the controversy which existed between the respondents and appellant, the award having been paid, there was, in fact, nothing left for the Board to decide, and such liability of the surety, if any, may be determined in this proceeding pending in the district court. ... . The proceeding before the Industrial Accident Board, after payment of all compensation to which the injured work[er] was entitled, was simply a matter of contribution between alleged joint obligors. The Board's jurisdiction does not extend to such matters. The present proceeding is one based on a contractual relation and under the facts presented is not a controversy for the Board to determine. Id. at 384-85, 304 P.2d at 911-12. Nine years later in Martin I the Court extended the ruling in Thompson to a case where no award had been made to the employee at the time the employer sought to have the board determine that a surety insured the employer's compensation liability to the employee: Thus the issue is clearly put for this court: Does the Industrial Accident Board have jurisdiction, once a claim is made to the Board by an employee seeking a work[ers'] compensation award, to decide a collateral issue of law of the existence or nonexistence of a contract of insurance between an employer and an insurance company, or an issue of estoppel of the surety to deny the existence of the insurance contract? This matter has been conclusively decided in Thompson v. Liberty National Insurance Co., 78 Idaho 381, 384, 304 P.2d 910, 911 (1956)... . Although the facts in that case indicate the injured employee had been paid the compensation award by his employer prior to the Board's determination of the surety's liability, the principles of law enunciated therein are applicable in the present case. 90 Idaho at 106-7, 408 P.2d at 475. In Martin II, the Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider a declaratory judgment action brought by the employee and the employer against a surety to determine if the surety was liable for the compensation award to the employee. Repeating the holding in Martin I, the Court said: The Industrial Accident Board ... was not a tribunal of competent jurisdiction to determine the sole issue between the parties  whether Argonaut was Woods' surety  and this court so held on appeal, stating that the district court was the only court with jurisdiction to determine the issue. 90 Idaho at 110, 408 P.2d at 477 (emphasis in original). In Heese v. A & T Trucking, 102 Idaho 598, 635 P.2d 962 (1981) the Court referred to Thompson and Martin II: Finally, the employer contends that the Industrial Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether there existed a contract of insurance between A & T and Argonaut Insurance Company. The employer alleges that in two previous cases, [citing Martin II and Thompson ], this Court held that the Industrial Accident Board did not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between the employer and its putative compensation carrier regarding the existence of coverage... . Here, the commission decided only whether, as between the injured employee and the employer, an additional award of compensation was to be made to the employee because the employer fail[ed] to secure payment of compensation as required by this act. The commission's finding that A & T had failed to file its notice of security as required by I.C. § 72-311 was sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties required by I.C. § 72-210. The commission did not and did not need to resolve the ultimate question of coverage as between the employer and Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company. Therefore, the commission did not exceed its jurisdiction as in the Martin and Thompson cases. Id. at 601, 635 P.2d at 965 (citations omitted). Justice Bistline's opinion in Heese, concurring in the result in part, strongly urged the Court to acknowledge authority in the Commission to determine the contract issue in the context of the present case. Id. at 602, 635 P.2d at 966 (Bistline, J., concurring specially). Justice Bistline cited I.C. § 72-707 and distinguished Thompson from the Martin cases on the ground that in Thompson the employer had paid the compensation benefits to the employee prior to proceeding before the Industrial Accident Board to determine the liability of the surety. Id. at 603, 635 P.2d at 967. Justice Bistline advocated that the Martin cases be overruled. Id. at 604, 635 P.2d at 968.