Fonseca v. Corral Agriculture, Inc., 156 Idaho 142

Background

Marco Fonseca, an apple picker employed by Corral Agriculture, alleges he fell from a ladder in September 2010 and injured his hip and back; he filed a workers’ compensation claim.
Early medical visits (Sept. 24 and Oct. 10, 2010) to Terry Reilly clinic record gastrointestinal complaints and contain no mention of a fall or back/hip injury; a December 15, 2010 ER visit records hip/back complaints after Fonseca had already signed his claim and retained counsel.
At hearing, Fonseca sought to admit Spanish-language medical records without certified translation; the referee initially allowed but later excluded them unless translated at Fonseca’s expense. An interpreter was provided for live testimony.
The referee found Fonseca’s testimony internally inconsistent and contradicted by co-worker and supervisor testimony; the referee characterized Fonseca’s credibility as suspect and recommended denial of benefits. The Industrial Commission adopted the referee’s findings and denied the claim.
Fonseca appealed, challenging: exclusion of Spanish records and translation requirement, denial of motions for discovery sanctions, and the Commission’s denial of his request to augment the record. The Court affirmed the Commission.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commission abused discretion by denying request to augment the record with an alleged audio recording	Fonseca argued the recording existed and should be added to the record on appeal	Corral argued no such recording existed and the record already included the full transcript	Court: No abuse of discretion; Commission correctly refused to include non-existent or duplicate material
Whether referee erred by excluding untranslated Spanish medical records under J.R.P. 10(G)	Fonseca argued J.R.P.10(G) requires admission of medical records and an interpreter could translate; exclusion prejudiced him	Corral argued records were inadmissible because not intelligible to opposing counsel and Commission without translation	Court: Exclusion within Commission discretion; reliability/probative value concerns justified exclusion; Fonseca failed to show prejudice
Whether translation requirement violated Fonseca’s due process or equal protection rights	Fonseca argued requiring him to provide certified translation at his expense violated procedural/substantive due process and equal protection	Corral argued translation requirement was reasonable to ensure parties and Commission could understand evidence	Held: Court did not fully reach constitutional merits but found any error harmless because Fonseca did not show how excluded records would affect outcome
Whether orders denying discovery sanctions were appealable/final	Fonseca appealed denial of two discovery sanctions orders	Corral argued orders were interlocutory and not final Commission orders	Held: Denials were interlocutory and not adopted by Commission; Fonseca failed to preserve issue by not seeking reconsideration, so not appealable
Whether there was substantial and competent evidence to deny the injury claim	Fonseca argued evidence (including witness statements) supported his claim of an accident and injury	Corral pointed to inconsistent testimony, lack of contemporaneous medical documentation, and witnesses denying knowledge of the fall	Held: Substantial and competent evidence supported Commission’s credibility findings and denial of claim
Whether respondents were entitled to attorney fees on appeal under I.A.R.11.2 or I.C. §12-121	Fonseca contended appeal was in good faith	Corral sought fees claiming appeal lacked factual and legal basis	Held: No sanctions under I.A.R.11.2—Corral failed to prove bad faith or improper purpose; I.C. §12-121 inapplicable to administrative appeals

Key Cases Cited

Knowlton v. Wood River Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 135 (2011) (standard: appellate review—defer to Commission factual findings supported by substantial and competent evidence)
McNulty v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 152 Idaho 582 (2012) (definition of substantial and competent evidence)
Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 154 Idaho 750 (2013) (Commission may consider reliable evidence even if not strictly admissible in court)
Clark v. Shari’s Mgmt. Corp., 155 Idaho 576 (2013) (review of Commission credibility determinations and accident standard)
Talbot v. Ames Const., 127 Idaho 648 (1995) (I.A.R. sanction authority and bad-faith standard)
Stolle v. Bennett, 144 Idaho 44 (2007) (standards for awarding sanctions on appeal under I.A.R.)