Court Opinion

ID: 9845474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:22:45.16569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:08.878433
License: Public Domain

*15BAKES, Chief Justice,
concurring in result:
The Court’s opinion points out that “the findings by the Commission that claimant’s multiple sclerosis condition was not aggravated in any way by the industrial accident, that his back condition has not changed since the date of the compensation agreement, and that claimant’s condition would be the same whether or not he had suffered the industrial accident, were all fully sustained by the evidence.” Therefore, I concur with the Court’s ultimate decision that there are no grounds for modification of the compensation agreement between the claimant and the employer and its surety based either on change of condition or manifest injustice.
Since the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund was not a party to the original proceeding, the claimant’s request for modification could not be directed toward it. The majority acknowledges this when it states, ante at 9, that “the proceedings below were not truly an action seeking modification of a previous award.... Rather, the case can more properly be characterized as an attempt to bring in I.S.I.F. as a party so as to secure additional compensation benefits long after the initial award against the employer and surety had been entered.” Thus, procedurally, this case is nothing more than a claim filed against the I.S.I.F. As such, the claim is subject to all of the defenses which the I.S.I.F. may have.
It is not clear that the commission viewed the matter that way, and accordingly I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.