Court Opinion

ID: 9796273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:53:25.583241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:26.123132
License: Public Domain

Justice SILAK
dissenting.
I dissent from Parts IIIC and Part IV of the majority opinion, although I concur in the remainder of the opinion. The majority correctly cites this Court’s standard of review in stating that the Court will not overturn a decision v of the Industrial Commission if there is substantial and competent evidence to support its findings, citing Zapata v. J.R. Simplot Co., 132 Idaho 513, 515, 975 P.2d 1178, 1180 (1999). In my view the decision of the Industrial Commission concerning the causal relationship between Jensen’s renal failure and an industrial accident should not be reversed under the above standard of review.
In the Referee’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations (adopted by the Industrial Commission in its Order), the issue of causation is addressed as follows:
36. Consistent with a long line of medical causation cases, the Supreme Court recently declared:
The claimant carries the burden of proof that to a reasonable degree of medical probability the injury for which benefits are claimed is causally related to an accident occurring in the course of employment. Buffington v. Potlatch Corp., 125 Idaho 837, 839, 875 P.2d 934, 936 (1994). Proof of a possible causal link is insufficient to satisfy the burden. Beardsley v. Idaho Forest Indus., 127 Idaho at 406, 901 P.2d at 513; Roberts v. Kit Mfg. Co., 124 Idaho at 947, 866 P.2d at 970. The issue of causation must be proven by expert medical testimony. Langley v. State Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 126 Idaho 781, 890 P.2d 732 (1995); Soto v. Simplot, 126 Idaho at 540, 887 P.2d at 1047.
Hart v. Kaman Bearing & Supply, 130 Idaho 296, 299, 939 P.2d 1375, 1378 (1997).
37. The non-expert evidence and much of the expert evidence herein indicate a causal relationship between Claimant’s ingestion of Pain-off at work and his renal failure. Defendants’ alternate causation theories are unpersuasive. However, Dr. Narasimhan opined there was no causal relationship and, although “no special verbal formula is necessary,” Paulson v. Idaho Forest Industries, Inc., 99 Idaho 896, 901, 591 P.2d 143, 148 (1979), inasmuch as Dr. Hearn repeatedly and expressly refused to opine to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Claimant’s renal failure was caused by his Pain-off ingestion and/or solvent exposure at work, Hart requires the conclusion that Claimant has *414failed to establish by expert medical testimony that his renal failure was work-related.
The majority opinion appears to reinterpret the testimony of Dr. Hearn to support a causation finding, contrary to the Commission’s reasonable interpretation of that same testimony. This approach departs from the traditionally deferential standard of review of the Commission’s findings of fact. Accordingly, I dissent and would affirm the order of the Commission.
Chief Justice TROUT concurs.