Tarbet v. J.R. Simplot Co., 264 P.3d 394

Claimant Tarbet, a long-time employee of Employer, was permanently disabled by a 2007 accident.
The key issue was whether Employer alone or ISIF should pay the total disability benefits.
Tarbet had pre-existing impairments from prior conditions and injuries, including hearing loss and back issues.
The Commission found the 2007 accident caused total disability under the odd-lot doctrine, with no pre-existing impairments contributing.
Employer challenged, arguing pre-existing impairments contributed and ISIF should be liable for remainder.
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the employer solely liable for Tarbet's benefits under the odd-lot/total disability finding?	Tarbet: last accident alone caused total disability; pre-existing impairments irrelevant.	Employer: pre-existing impairments contributed; ISIF should cover remainder.	Yes; Commission’s sole-employer liability affirmed.
Does Idaho Code § 72-332(1) require ISIF to pay if combined effects cause total disability?	Tarbet argues total disability from last accident plus nonmedical factors suffices for odd-lot, not ISIF.	Employer must show combined effects render total disability; otherwise ISIF pays remainder.	No; Court affirms odd-lot basis and sole responsibility by Employer.
Was the Commission's reliance on expert testimony by ISIF proper despite alleged inaccuracies?	Employer claims two factual statements by ISIF expert were incorrect and should invalidate testimony.	Inconsistencies affect credibility but do not bar admissibility; remaining testimony stands.	Yes; credibility determinations permissible; inaccuracies did not undermine reliance.
Did the evidence support that Tarbet cannot obtain suitable employment given restrictions?	Tarbet cannot transfer to other work; odd-lot status supported by market	Employer argued there were potential jobs, but lacked actual opportunities within reasonable distance.	Yes; substantial evidence supports lack of reasonably available employment.

Christensen v. S.L. Start & Assoc., Inc., 147 Idaho 289 (2009) (odd-lot and total disability framework, combining impairment with nonmedical factors)
Bybee v. State, Indus. Special Indemn. Fund, 129 Idaho 76 (1996) (burden on ISIF to show pre-existing impairment and its impact)
Lyons v. Industrial Special Indemn. Fund, 98 Idaho 403 (1977) (need actual job opportunity within reasonable distance to establish employability)
Hoye v. DAW Forest Prods., Inc., 125 Idaho 582 (1994) (burden shifting in odd-lot cases after prima facie case is shown)
Jarvis v. Rexburg Nursing Ctr., 136 Idaho 579 (2001) (description of odd-lot impairment standard and market considerations)
Gooby v. Lake Shore Management Co., 136 Idaho 79 (2001) (odd-lot workers require lack of regular employability in labor market)
Eacret v. Clearwater Forest Indus., 136 Idaho 733 (2002) (proper standard for reviewing Commission factual findings)
McAlpin v. Wood River Med. Ctr., 129 Idaho 1 (1996) (scope of review of Industrial Commission decisions on questions of law)