Opinion ID: 874361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Are the Commission's Findings of Fact Supported by Substantial and Competent Evidence?

Text: Our standard for reviewing decisions of the Industrial Commission is as follows: When this Court reviews a decision of the Industrial Commission, it exercises free review over questions of law, but reviews questions of fact only to determine whether substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission's findings. Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. Because the Commission is the fact finder, its conclusions on the credibility and weight of the evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. This Court does not weigh the evidence or consider whether it would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence presented. Whether a claimant has an impairment and the degree of permanent disability resulting from an industrial injury are questions of fact. Eacret v. Clearwater Forest Indus., 136 Idaho 733, 735, 40 P.3d 91, 93 (2002) (citations omitted). On appeal, Claimant asks us to reweigh the facts and find that he was an employee of either Employer 1 or Employer 2 at the time of the accident. That is something we cannot do. The only legal issue raised by Claimant is that the Commission failed to consider the emergency doctrine. Claimant argues: Such a finding also does not consider the long-standing rule regarding emergencies at the work place, sometimes called the emergency doctrine. Although apparently not addressed to date in case law in Idaho, this well-established doctrine in workers compensation law provides that the scope of an employee's employment is impliedly extended in an emergency to include the performance of any act designed to save life or property in which the employer has an interest. We need not address this doctrine or whether it would even apply to the facts of this case because Claimant did not raise it below. We will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. Horne v. Idaho State Univ., 138 Idaho 700, 706, 69 P.3d 120, 126 (2003).