Opinion ID: 2625740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Commission Err in Failing to Apportion Disability as set Forth in Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 145 Idaho 302, 179 P.3d 265 (2008)?

Text: The Commission found that Claimant failed to prove that he sustained any disability in excess of impairment from the 1999 industrial accident. Claimant challenges that finding by contending that the Commission failed to engage in the two-step analysis required by this Court in Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 145 Idaho 302, 179 P.3d 265 (2008). [1] In Page, we dealt with the appropriate procedure for apportioning disability under Idaho Code § 72-406(1) [2] between the industrial accident and any preexisting physical impairment. We stated that such apportionment requires a two step analysis: (1) evaluating the claimant's permanent disability in light of all of his physical impairments, resulting from the industrial accident and any pre-existing conditions, existing at the time of the evaluation; and (2) apportioning the amount of the permanent disability attributable to the industrial accident. 145 Idaho at 309, 179 P.3d at 272. The claimant in Page had a disability in excess of her impairment. The Commission found that she had a 1% whole person permanent impairment and a 5% whole person permanent disability. Because in this case Claimant did not have any disability in excess of impairment, that two-step analysis has no application. A permanent disability rating is an appraisal of the injured employee's present and probable future ability to engage in gainful activity as it is affected by the medical factor of permanent impairment and by pertinent nonmedical factors as provided in section 72-430, Idaho Code. I.C. § 72-425. [D]isability only results when the claimant's ability to engage in gainful activity is reduced or absent `because of permanent impairment.' Only after the impairment reduces the claimant's earning capacity do the pertinent nonmedical factors come into play. Rivas v. K.C. Logging, 134 Idaho 603, 608, 7 P.3d 212, 217 (2000) (quoting I.C. § 72-423). The claimant bears the burden of proving disability in excess of his or her impairment rating. Monroe v. Chuck & Del's, Inc., 123 Idaho 627, 631, 851 P.2d 341, 345 (1993). The purpose of the two-step analysis in Page is to facilitate judicial review when the Commission apportions disability under Section 72-406(1). As we stated in Page, When the Commission apportions permanent disability so as to absolve the employer for compensating for preexisting injuries, the Commission must explain its apportionment determination with sufficient rationale to enable this Court to determine whether it is supported by substantial and competent evidence. 145 Idaho at 309, 179 P.3d at 272. Idaho Code § 72-406(1) only applies if the degree or duration of disability resulting from an industrial injury or occupational disease is increased or prolonged because of a preexisting physical impairment. Id. If it is, then the total disability must be apportioned so that the employer is only liable for the additional disability from the industrial injury or occupational disease. Id. In this case, the Commission determined that Claimant had a 19% whole person permanent physical impairment caused by the 1999 industrial accident and that he had failed to prove any disability in excess of that impairment. Since he did not have any disability in excess of impairment, no apportionment was necessary in order to determine the employer's liability. The employer is liable for the 19% whole person impairment, and there is no additional disability to apportion. Because Idaho Code § 72-406(1) does not apply where there is no disability in excess of impairment, the Commission was not required to use the two-step analysis set forth in Page.