Funes v. AARDEMA DAIRY
150 Idaho 7
| Idaho | 2010Background
- Funes sustained an on-the-job back injury in January 2005 while employed by Aardema Dairy.
- Industrial Commission found 25% permanent partial disability (PPD) but not total disability; Funes appealed arguing miscalculation or odd-lot status.
- IME and multiple physicians evaluated Funes; opinions varied on impairment, pain, and work capacity.
- IME panel concluded light-to-medium work with specific weight restrictions; Dr. O'Brien issued a 20% PPI, diverging from others.
- Commission considered non-medical factors, pain, and language/education limitations in determining disability; award included unpaid medical expenses and fees denial; Funes challenged denial of total disability and odd-lot status.
- This appeal addresses whether the 25% PPD is supported, whether Funes qualifies as an odd-lot worker, and whether Aardema is entitled to attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 25% PPD is supported by substantial evidence | Funes argues impairment plus non-medical factors understate disability. | Employer argues the medical panel and evidence support 25% PPD. | Yes; 25% PPD supported by substantial and competent evidence. |
| Whether Funes qualifies as an odd-lot worker | Funes contends pain and limited opportunities show odd-lot status. | Defendants argue evidence shows available light-to-medium work; not an odd-lot. | No; substantial evidence supports not being an odd-lot worker. |
| Whether Aardema is entitled to attorney fees under I.A.R. 11.2 | N/A (Funes); Aardema seeks sanctions for appeal. | Aardema asserts Rule 11.2 sanctions are warranted for unreasonable appeal. | Denied; sanctions not warranted due to Funes' illiteracy and attorney died during appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graybill v. Swift & Co. of Idaho, 115 Idaho 293 (Idaho Supreme Court 1988) (nonmedical factors considered with impairment in disability valuation)
- Christensen v. S.L. Start & Assoc., Inc., 147 Idaho 289 (Idaho Supreme Court 2009) (defining permanent impairment and disability standards)
- Jarvis v. Rexburg Nursing Ctr., 136 Idaho 579 (Idaho Supreme Court 2001) (odd-lot framework and total disability analysis)
- Boley v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 130 Idaho 278 (Idaho Supreme Court 1997) (burden to establish odd-lot status lies with claimant)
- Stolle v. Bennett, 144 Idaho 44 (Idaho Supreme Court 2007) (fee sanctions under I.A.R. 11.2 considerations)
- Talbot v. Ames Construction, 127 Idaho 648 (Idaho Supreme Court 1995) (factors for awarding attorney fees on appeal)
- Bradford v. Roche Moving & Storage, Inc., 147 Idaho 733 (Idaho Supreme Court 2009) (sanctions and scope of appellate arguments)
- Jensen v. City of Pocatello, 135 Idaho 406 (Idaho Supreme Court 2000) (standards for reviewing substantial evidence)
- Pomerinke v. Excel Trucking Transport, Inc., 124 Idaho 301 (Idaho Supreme Court 1993) (AMA guides referenced in impairment assessment)
- Eacret v. Clearwater Forest Indus., 136 Idaho 733 (Idaho Supreme Court 2002) (substantial evidence standard and factual review)
- Lethrud v. Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 126 Idaho 560 (Idaho Supreme Court 1995) (odd-lot and disability determinations' factual nature)