Court Opinion

ID: 9631353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:35:07.639667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:52.320696
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
Bistline, J. continues to adhere to the views expressed in the January 1989 opinions of Huntley, J. and Bistline, J. It was my thought then, and continues to be, that the Court has allowed itself to become mired down in attempting to make perfect sense of what now is accepted as an extremely complex set of statutory provisions in the Worker’s Compensation Law, I.C. § 72-101 et seq. Of course, the Court does have to wrestle with the legislature’s statutory scheme, and more often than not without any insight as to the legislative thinking or the lobbying pressures to which it has been subjected. All of this is understandable. What is not understandable is that, lost in the Court’s unravelling process is the guiding beacon which should be reminding the Court that:
Process and procedure under the Workmen’s Compensation Act are designed to be as summary and simple as is reasonably possible. I.C. § 72-708. As this Court has held many times, the Act is to be construed liberally in favor of a claimant. The humane purposes which it seeks to serve leave no room for narrow, technical construction. In re Haynes, 95 Idaho 492, 511 P.2d 309 (1973); Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404 (1946).
*245The whole idea is to get away from cumbersome procedures and technicalities of pleading so that, to the greatest extent possible, claims for compensation can be decided on their merits.
Hattenburg v. Blanks, 98 Idaho 485, 486, 567 P.2d 829, 830 (1977). (emphasis added).
Paraphrasing slightly from our nation’s Pledge of Allegiance, it is suggested that this Court strive to become “one state with liberality and justice for all,” especially for working people who become injured through no fault of their own.