Court Opinion

ID: 9856073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:37:25.155189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:58.289972
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority’s affirmance of the Industrial Commission’s decision is incorrect in that the majority’s opinion mischaracterizes *632and overlooks key uneontroverted facts. Moreover, contrary to the majority’s assertions, the case of Johnson v. Boise Cascade Corp., 93 Idaho 107, 456 P.2d 751 (1969), compels a reversal.
Johnson presents facts that are markedly similar to the case sub judice. Johnson had injured his back in the course of employment. The doctor believed that Johnson had a possible lumbar disc protrusion at the L4-5 level, which was removed in several surgeries. Over three years later, Johnson slipped while trying to get into a truck, reached for the steering wheel to keep from falling, and experienced low back pain. His doctor stated that the truck incident had aggravated his past back pathology. In a later surgery, the doctor removed the L4-5 disc, but the patient still suffered from arachnoiditis, a condition which could be caused by trauma or chemicals. Apparently, the only testimony was from Johnson’s doctor. The Industrial Accident Board there found that “the condition of said disc material and continued complaints of claimant prior to said surgery [after the non-work-related accident] show a direct causal connection with the [earlier] industrial accident.” In Monroe’s case, his doctor’s deposition testimony (which, by stipulation of both parties, was the only evidence before the referee and therefore was uncontroverted) stated that Monroe’s first accident caused an injury at the L4-5 level, which was remedied by surgery, and caused a bulging disc at the L5-S1 space, as demonstrated by an MRI scan. When Monroe picked up his shovel (presumably less traumatic to the back than preventing a fall out of a pick-up truck) two years later, he injured the disc at L5-Sl and became symptomatic. In fact, the only difference between the two cases is that Johnson maintained roughly the same symptoms throughout his injuries, whereas Monroe developed new symptoms after his most recent accident.4
In light of the similarities between these case, it is surprising that the referee never addresses or even cites Johnson. The majority, in an after-the-fact attempted save, tries to distinguish Johnson from the instant case by stating that “[i]n the present case, there was no pre-existing condition, as Monroe was asymptomatic after the 1987 injury.” I would agree with the majority’s distinction if the majority’s factual assertion was not patently erroneous. That assertion, however, is erroneous. The referee never expressly made a finding as to whether there was a pre-existing condition. The referee, however, did find that Monroe “suffered a new and distinct injury in July of 1989 which brought on [his] left-sided symptoms and evidently resulted in an additional bulging or herniation of the disc in question.” Findings of Fact, p. 6 (emphasis added). The referee continued, “The Claimant’s symptoms were dramatic and different and apparently resulted from some increased pathology at the L5-S1 level.” Id. (emphasis added). It is clear, then, that the referee accepted that Monroe had pre-existing bulging or herniation and *633pathology at that same disc that he later injured.
It is noteworthy Johnson was not simply a case where this Court deferred to the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact under a substantial, competent evidence standard. In its discussion of Johnson, the majority only tells half the story: this Court actually declared, “Not only do we believe that the facts in this case support the Board’s conclusion that the ‘pick-up truck’ incident aggravated a pre-existing condition, but we believe that a contrary conclusion on the part of the Board would have been unreasonable.” Johnson, 93 Idaho at 111-12, 456 P.2d at 755-56 (emphasis added).
The referee appeared to define causation far too narrowly. Johnson held that the non-work related pickup truck accident was not a superseding trauma. It is thus hard to imagine how the referee could find that Monroe’s second injury was a “new and distinct injury with no direct causal connection to the Claimant’s April, 1987, injury,” even though the most recent injury “was superimposed on the preexisting pathology-”
In addition, an examination of Dr. Botimer’s deposition transcript shows that the evidence adduced therein utterly failed to support the referee’s finding of lack of causation. For instance, Dr. Botimer stated,
The question is how much do you ascribe to the first and how much do you ascribe to the second injury as to causing his true problem. When you phrase it symptoms, I have to say the symptoms are from the second. When you say which is responsible or led up to or compromised him so that he could have gotten the second one, then you have to say that’s related to the first one also.
Deposition transcript, p. 22. Another example is this exchange between Dr. Botimer and Mr. Shurtliff, respondents’ attorney:
[Shurtliff]: The initial injury created the condition, L5-S1?
[Botimer]: Correct.
[Shurtliff]: And the second injury exacerbated it?
[Botimer]: That’s correct.
Id., p. 20. The only evidence that could conceivably be construed as supporting the referee’s conclusion came about during cross-examination:
[Shurtliff]: You don’t have a crystal ball that can tell you with a surety that but for that previous injury, he wouldn’t have hurt his back, L5-S1, on that day that he cleaned his ditch, can you?
[Botimer]: That’s correct.
Id. (emphasis added); and
[Shurtliff]: Well, but isn’t that true—it would be extreme, but that’s true right now of any of the four of us who’ve never had a previous problem that we could, in just doing something ordinary, go over and herniate a disc?
[Botimer]: People have done herniated discs with normal activities like that, but it’s unusual.5
[Shurtliff]: But not medically impossible?
[Botimer]: That’s correct.
Id., p. 25 (emphasis added).
Thus, the uncontested evidence clearly demonstrated that it was highly probable, although not completely impossible, that the first injury was causally related to the second injury. But in fact, all that is necessary is that an expert testify to a reasonable degree of medical probability. This Dr. Botimer did.
In light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the conclusion that the disc already damaged in the first accident further ruptured in the second accident, there was no substantial competent evidence to support the conclusion that the herniated disk was in no way caused by the first accident.
Although the substantial and competent evidence test dictates that we defer to the *634findings of the Industrial Commission and its referees, it is not to be, nor should it be, used as a “rubber stamp” to affirm each and every Industrial Commission decision. This is particularly true when the Commission fails to follow applicable Idaho case law. See, e.g., Hill v. E & L Farms, 123 Idaho 371, 848 P.2d 429 (1993). And it is even more true when the only evidence is uncontroverted deposition testimony, in which credibility is not an issue.
This Court should vacate the Industrial Commission’s order and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with our case law and with the factual reality of Monroe’s unfortunate situation.

. The majority’s (and referee’s) preoccupation with symptoms is odd, to say the least. For instance, the referee defined ”[t]he primary issue to be determined” as "whether the Claimant’s left-sided symptoms, emanating from the bulging disc at L5-S1 on the left side, and subsequent treatment of this condition, are causally related to the Claimant’s 1987 injury so that he is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for this condition.” Findings of Fact, p. 6 (emphasis added). Nowhere in the worker’s compensation act does the word "symptoms” appear. The relevant inquiry is, as the majority correctly notes, whether there is "substantial competent evidence to support the Commission's finding that Monroe is not entitled to benefits for problems associated with a bulging or herniated disc at the L5-S1 level because his 1989 injury is not causally related to his 1987 injury.” Even the majority, then recognizes that the issue is whether Monroe’s second injury was caused in some way by his 1987 injury.
Moreover, the referee notes that Dr. Botimer remarked upon a “bulging disc at the L5-S1 level on the left side which he had elected not to enter at the time of the Claimant’s previous surgery because the Claimant did not have left-sided symptoms at that time.” Findings of Fact, p. 5. Dr. Botimer then formed the opinion that "the original injury ruptured or bulged the disc at L5-S1 and the second episode continued that process to make him symptomatic.” The doctor clearly delineated the difference between "injuries” and "symptoms” and implicitly testified that an injury could exist without symptoms. The referee never stated that he disbelieved the doctor’s expertise.

. Dr. Botimer’s testimony that such an injury would be unusual for a person with an uninjured back would seem to indicate that in light of the fact that Monroe had previously injured that same disc, it would be even less probable that the second injury was not caused by the first.