Court Opinion

ID: 9587073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:47.585378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:01.118808
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice
concurring and dissenting.
My inability to concur outright is predicated on a present reluctance to endorse the validity of the Mapusaga5 opinion — an appeal in which I did not participate. However, there was occasion to become acquainted with the saga of Mapusaga during the time this Court had under consideration the appeal of Horton v. Garrett Freightlines, Inc., 115 Idaho 912, 772 P.2d 119 (1989). In Horton, this Court upheld a Commission decision which, in evaluating permanent impairment and in turn permanent disability, refused to consider Horton’s deficient collagen makeup and resultant osteoarthritis as a preexisting condi*214tion. This was a hereditary, and hence a personal circumstance over which Horton could exercise no control. By contrast, alcoholic abuse, even though by some considered a disease, is subject to some control, and perhaps complete control.
Either Mapusaga needs to be reconsidered, as has also been suggested by one other member of the Court, and if not, then clearly Horton is entitled to a rethinking of his case. Or, as one other member of the Court has suggested, perhaps it is in order for the Court to dedicate a number of weeks to a symposium of rehearings in compensation cases whereby the Court itself can review and rethink what have been very vexing problems. Should the Court do so, we should solicit amicus appearances by the attorneys who regularly practice in this specialized field.

. Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 113 Idaho 842, 748 P.2d 1372 (1987).