Dallas Clark v. Shari's Management Corp
155 Idaho 576
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Clark alleged a November 24, 2008 workplace incident caused a back injury while serving at Shari’s; initial medical treatment began December 11, 2008 with a chiropractor diagnosing sciatica attributed to work; Clark notified her employer on December 15, 2008; later medical visits through December 2008–April 2009 documented back/left leg pain and a large L5-S1 disc extrusion found on MRI; treatment included epidural injections and physical therapy, with surgery contemplated; the employer filed a First Report of Injury on April 24, 2009, but the insurer denied the claim; Clark pursued an IC claim in November 2009 and submitted multiple IMEs with conflicting causation opinions; the Commission denied benefits, and Clark appealed.
- Clark’s factual assertions about the accident were found inconsistent and the Commission credited medical records and credibility findings over her later statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports no industrial accident | Clark | Shari’s | Yes, substantial evidence supports denial |
| Credibility standard for substantive credibility | Clark argues for a broader or different standard | Commission applied credibility standard (substantial consistency) from Harris/Mullaney line | Held the Commission properly used substantial-consistency standard to assess credibility |
| Relation of “accident” and “injury” under statute | Accident and injury should be linked more directly | Definitions require an accident causing injury; not interchangeable | Held the standard requires causal link; Commission did not err in applying statutory framework |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Clark seeks fees under I.C. § 72-313 | Statute does not authorize fees here; no prevailing party | Denied for both sides; costs awarded to respondents |
| Harms from alleged Referee errors | Referee errors taint credibility findings | Commission corrected errors; substantial evidence remains | Denied as a basis to overturn; credibility supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Konvalinka v. Bonneville Cnty., 140 Idaho 477, 95 P.3d 628 (Idaho 2004) (definition of accident and injury relationship; interrelation but not synonymy)
- Stevens-McAtee v. Potlatch Corp., 145 Idaho 325, 179 P.3d 288 (Idaho 2008) (clarifies credibility standard and consistency requirement)
- Neihart v. Universal Joint Auto Parts, Inc., 141 Idaho 801, 118 P.3d 133 (Idaho 2005) (substantial and competent evidence standard governs IC findings)
- Painter v. Potlatch Corp., 138 Idaho 309, 63 P.3d 435 (Idaho 2003) (illustrates substantive credibility assessment factors)
- Hazen v. Gen. Store, 111 Idaho 972, 729 P.2d 1035 (Idaho 1986) (aging/disc injury reversal; substantial evidence standard applied)
- Harris v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 154 Idaho 917, 303 P.3d 604 (Idaho 2013) (credibility framework subdivided into observational vs substantive; review for substantial evidence)
- City of Meridian v. Petra Inc., 154 Idaho 425, 299 P.3d 232 (Idaho 2013) (precedent on attorney fees and procedural posture in IC cases)
- Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 154 Idaho 750, 302 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2013) (concerns Commission review; clerical/record accuracy issues in ref. findings)
- Henry v. Dep’t of Correction, 154 Idaho 143, 295 P.3d 528 (Idaho 2013) (recent trend in agency credibility and review procedures)
- Swanson v. Kraft, 116 Idaho 315, 775 P.2d 629 (Idaho 1989) (civil action fees precedent cited in IC context)