Court Opinion

ID: 9844432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:02:45.469823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:35.200952
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring specially and dissenting in part.
Although I have joined the opinion for the Court, I do so with some trepidation which is occasioned by the similarity this case bears to Johnson v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., (Idaho Sup.Ct. No. 14746, released January 1,1984), and pending for the past half year on a petition for rehearing. Both cases are concerned with a “heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) which was an ‘on the job accident.’ ” Johnson, supra (Huntley, J., dissenting). Conceptually, I experience considerable difficulty in rationalizing the different results in the two cases, and would think it better appellate practice to retain any decision in this case until the Court comes to grips with Johnson. Time constraints being as they are under the rules by which the Court directs the release of opinions having three votes, I yield to the majority view, but with reservations.
My dissenting thought is simply stated. In Mager v. Garrett Freightlines, relied upon by the author of today’s opinion for the Court, the Court relied solely upon Booth v. City of Burley, again today relied upon. Mager was an industrial accident case; Booth was a claim for unemployment benefits, on appeal to the Industrial Commission from the Department of Employment. The Industrial Commission in such circumstance is an appellate tribunal.
In connection with another case presently under consideration, I have extensively reviewed Booth, and am fully convinced of its invalidity — which will be well-documented when our opinions are released in this other case.