Court Opinion

ID: 9790359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:52:10.071104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:29.140110
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Chief Justice,
concurring specially:
Had the Commission not retained jurisdiction in this matter, then their conclusion that the “decision of the Commission in the above matter which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal has become final through operation of law and cannot now be clarified or amended in any way,” would assuredly be correct. However, as this Court has only recently discovered, the Commission retained jurisdiction in this case, a point which was not brought to our attention, and which was apparently overlooked by this Court in the original appeal, Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284, 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (.Kindred I). Had the retained jurisdiction been called to our attention, or been discovered by the Court sua sponte, the appropriate action in Kindred I would have been to dismiss the appeal. Reynolds v. Browning Ferris Industries, 106 Idaho 894, 684 P.2d 296 (1984). However, being unaware of the retained jurisdiction, the case went to a final decision by this Court in Kindred I, in which we affirmed the order of the Commission which made no award for total temporary disability benefits.
Had the Commission not retained jurisdiction, I would vote to affirm the Commission’s decision that the case was final and cannot now be clarified or amended in any way. However, since the Commission did retain jurisdiction in the case, it had authority to consider Kindred’s motion to clarify its original order. That is not to suggest that the Commission must clarify its original order. The Commission may well conclude that Kindred did not raise any issue concerning total temporary disability benefits for the period he is now claiming, and if the Commission so concludes it would be justified in not modifying its order. However, having retained jurisdiction, the Commission does have the authority to consider Kindred’s motion if it concludes that the issue was raised and not waived. Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s vacating of the Commission’s order denying Kindred’s motion for clarification of his award, and remanding for the Commission to consider that motion.