Opinion ID: 1244808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Commission's finding of permanent partial impairment is supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Text: The first issue in this case is whether the Commission's finding of partial impairment is supported by substantial and competent evidence. The relevant statute in this regard is I.C. § 72-424, which provides: Permanent Impairment Evaluation  Evaluation (rating) of permanent impairment is a medical appraisal of the nature and extent of the injury or disease as it affects an injured employee's personal efficiency in the activities of daily living, such as self-care, communication, normal living postures, ambulation, elevation, traveling, and nonspecialized activities of bodily members. The factor of pain should be considered and included in the impairment evaluation as it relates to a functional loss. Urry v. Walker & Fox Masonry Contractors, 115 Idaho 750, 755, 769 P.2d 1122, 1127 (1989). A physician's opinion as to the extent of impairment is advisory only and is not binding upon the Commission. Here, the Commission concluded, that Baker suffers from a 9% impairment of the whole person. Louisiana Pacific argues that the Commission's findings of fact in this regard are not supported by substantial and competent evidence. In particular, appellant argues that: a) Dr. Hill's 1990 evaluation of Baker is without validity because Dr. Hill did not personally examine Baker, he had not been provided Dr. Brinkman's report and was pressured by Baker's counsel to give a evaluation favorable to Baker. b) Dr. Brinkman did not find any significant disability. In essence, Louisiana Pacific asks this Court to find Dr. Brinkman to be more credible than Drs. Hill and Blaisdell. We decline that invitation. The Court has recently held it will defer to the Commission's finding as to the credibility of medical experts. Ross v. Tupperware, 122 Idaho 641, 643, 837 P.2d 316, 318 (1992). There is no reason to depart from that rule in this case.