Court Opinion

ID: 9549981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:27:08.093157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:06.828208
License: Public Domain

*673DISSENTING OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting on denial of rehearing.
My disappointment in the majority’s action today is not rooted in the fact that it has ignored what I have had to say about this case, but rather that it has totally disregarded the arguments found in the appellant’s cogent petition for rehearing.
Ms. Trapp first reminds the Court of our statement in Sprague v. Caldwell Transportation Inc., 116 Idaho 720, 779 P.2d 395 (1989):
The provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Law are to be liberally construed in favor of the employee. Jones v. Morrison-Knudsen, Co., 98 Idaho 458, 567 P.2d 3 (1977); Burch v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 82 Idaho 323, 353 P.2d 1076 (1960). Liberal construction in favor of the worker is required to enable the act to serve the humane purpose for which it was promulgated, “leaving no room for narrow, technical construction.” Hattenburg v. Blanks, 98 Idaho 485, 485, 567 P.2d 829, 829 (1977).
116 Idaho at 721, 779 P.2d at 396 (emphasis in original). Then she goes on to argue:
What the majority has done in the opinion is to totally disregard this stricture. The majority has, in a case where all the facts had been stipulated, ruled that the Industrial Commission’s conclusion of law that the surety did not act unreasonably is entitled to be treated as a finding based upon “substantial evidence.” Such is just not the case here. There was ample precedent to point State Insurance Fund to the unmitigated truth that claimant was covered.
Petition for Rehearing pgs. 2-3.
This Justice agrees with Ms. Trapp. Accordingly, I dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing.