Court Opinion

ID: 9564879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:10:39.48672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:12.908027
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
specially concurring.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, I would premise the holding that the worker’s compensation laws of Idaho apply on I.C. § 72-217(2) rather than I.C. § 72-217(1).
The majority opinion agrees with the conclusion of the Industrial Commission that Kirkpatrick’s employment was, at the time of the accident, still principally localized in Idaho. In my opinion, Kirkpatrick was working under a contract of hire made in Idaho and was “in employment not principally localized in any state. I.C. § 72-217(2).
The decision of the Industrial Commission and of this Court is premised on the conclusion that Kirkpatrick’s employment remained localized in Idaho until it became localized in another state. Western Condensing Co. v. Industrial Commission, 262 Wis. 458, 55 N.W.2d 363 (1952). In my view, this principle conflicts with the clear language of I.C. § 72-220(1). The record here does not demonstrate that at the time of his injury Kirkpatrick regularly worked at or from Transtector’s place of business in Idaho, nor that he spent a substantial part of his working time in the service of Transtector in Idaho. Therefore, I conclude that his employment was not principally localized in Idaho. Likewise, the record here does not demonstrate that Transtector had a place of business in Ohio at or from which Kirkpatrick regularly worked, nor that he was domiciled in Ohio and spent a substantial part of his working time in that state. Therefore, I conclude that Kirkpatrick’s employment was “not principally localized in any state,” and that I.C. § 72-217(2) applies to provide coverage for his injuries.