Department of Employment v. St. Alphonsus Hospital
561 P.2d 1316
Idaho
1977
Check Treatment

*1 recover on an civil action to “(2) In stated, note, bill, account, account

open instrument, or contract relat-

negotiable goods, or sale of

ing purchase merchandise,

wares, unless otherwise law, prevailing party

provided fee attorney a reasonable be allowed

shall court, taxed and by the to be

to be set costs.” be award- attorney’s amount of fees to court, to the discretion of the trial

ed is left they be requirement

subject light of the factors stated

reasonable

above. is af- granting a new trial

The order for fur- and the cases are remanded

firmed No costs allowed. proceedings.

ther

McFADDEN, J., and C. and SHEPARD

DONALDSON, JJ., concur.

BAKES, Justice, concurring part and

concurring part: in the result in I, IV, V, VI, VII, in Parts and

I concur

and concur in the result in Parts II and III opinion Judge Scoggin. Gen., Marsh, Atty. Deputy

R. LaVar Boise, Kidwell, Gen., Atty. Wayne L. plaintiff-appellant. Givens, Boise, D. for defendant-

Raymond 561 P.2d 1316 respondent. EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF Plaintiff-Appellant, McFADDEN, Chief Justice. qualified is a non- HOSPITAL, which has elected to be profit ST. ALPHONSUS Defendant-Respondent. employer under the a cost Idaho of the terms 72-1349(f). In Act, two former I.C. § Alphonsus Hospital of St. Supreme Court of Idaho. Employ- determined unemployment com- paid accordingly. pensation later decided that ineligible pay- and that claimants improper, but nevertheless ments *2 charge attempted to St. for the The employment security fund is a cre- payments. erroneous After the determina- ation of statutes which provide that all that tion had been improper, covered employers must by contribute to it sought taxes, to St. obtain credit for upon based a percentage of their Department the amounts. The of Employ- gross payroll. I.C. 72-1315, -1320, §§ credit, ment refused to allow the holding -1349(a), -1350, -1351. The percentage a employer cost reimbursement is lia- any employer which pays dependent upon Employment Security ble Fund for employment his history. 72-1350, I.C. §§ not recovered from the employer -1351. An who has propor- claimants. Industrial Commission re- tionately fewer claims allowed against his holding versed account obtains a lower tax rate than does appeals. single Employment issue on employer an whose employment practices statute, appeal whether under the I.C. proportionately result in a larger number of effect, as it was then in a against 72-1349 cost claims allowed his account. I.C. employer obligated 72-1350(f), to re- -1351(a) (present law); §§ I.C. 72-1351(a)(l), imburse the Fund for -(5) (1974 law). §§ All of the paid unrecovered amounts out but later de- tax contributions the various employers improper. Legis- termined to be The Idaho comprise the fund from which benefits are since lature has amended the statute in 72-1346, -1349(a). However, I.C. §§ require question to cost reimbursement em- employers, cost-reimbursement such as St. ployers repay overpay- to Fund for Alphonsus Hospital, were not taxed as were S.L.1976, ments. Ch. employers, other but if so elected they agree could to reimburse the fund for This court has examined the relevant contributions which by were made it “which and concludes that statutes the Industrial in the [were] Commission was correct the construction I.C. 72- on those statutes. to placed Prior the 1976 1349(f)(2)(A)l (as it existed in Under amendment, employers cost reimbursement that statute the director was to bill each obligated compensate not to were employer cost-reimbursement for benefits ployment Security Fund for overpayments. a extended as result of claims which had The decision Industrial Commission been allowed in favor the former em- respondents. is affirmed. to Costs ployees of the employ- cost-reimbursement er. SHEPARD, JJ„ DONALDSON and con- When a claim is allowed a former cur. a employee of cost-reimbursement employ- BAKES, Justice, dissenting: er, the are made from the fund which has been amassed from the contribu- disagree majority I with tions of the other employers rated in the appeared as it does not state of Idaho because there is no other make employers cost-reimbursement liable payment. source for If the cost-reim- unemployment compensation employer bursement is not required to reim- paid. At mistakenly first blush it would burse the fund for the amount of benefits to require Alphonsus Hospi- seem unfair St. paid employees, to its then the rated em- be responsible tal in this case to for unem- ployers pay in the state will for the benefits ployment benefits which mistakenly Alphonsus’ employ- to its former ees, Alphonsus, since St. a being cost-reim- majority’s effect of the will decision result does not contribute to being charged in these benefits to all the employment security fund. 72- §§ employers rated [non cost-reimbursement] 1315A, -1349(f) (1974 law). of Idaho will in the state who be forced to Alphonsus, pay the bill for St. which is even In this case after the claims were filed more unfair. Alphonsus would have been notified of the

£85 takenly paid, should be chargeable that the two claimants determination initial account, since employer’s to do otherwise benefits. See I.C. §§ burden Later, upon thrust all 1323, -1368(e). of would who were compelled law ap- for reasons do not Employment, to contribute that bene- redetermined pear *3 which the the fund from benefits to cost-re- Alphon- erroneously had been fits employers’ prior employees imbursement original the protested had not sus advanced. is eligibility, but there determinations indicate that it had record to nothing in the The 1976 amendment to I.C. § grounds protest know any reason Laws, 207, in the 1976 Session ch. contained time. at 4, clearly spells out what I more view legislative already have intent ex pro- promptly Compare in 72-1349. V-1 pressed Oil billing for those tested Commission, v. Tax 98 Idaho Co. State quar- it received the made when had been (1977). It P.2d 756 is even clearer 559 now terly billing legislature intended that cost-reim to cost regularly gave reimburse- ployment required be to reim employers. See erroneously paid burse the fund for benefits (as it in It was 1349(f)(2)(D) existed their former protest by quarterly hospital this billing present dispute. led to the So BISTLINE, J., be determined from the

far can concurs. De-

there no indication either the hospital failed to exercise

partment or considering original diligence

due Thus, if cannot

claims. claimants, from one of the two

be parties going to have to

two innocent overpayments. the burden of those

bear charged will be to St.

Either the Hospital, they will have fund

paid out of

which was contributed to employers cost-reimbursement]

[non circumstances, Idaho. Under these state of 1318 P.2d leg- then much clearer what the it becomes Idaho, The STATE of provided in I.C. intended when it islature Plaintiff-Respondent, 72-1349(f)(2)(A)l that: nonprofit director shall bill each “[T]he . . which elected has TERRY, Defendant-Appellant. A. Patrick payments in lieu of contributions to make equal to the full amount for an amount (V2)of regular plus benefits one-half Court of Idaho. Supreme of extended benefits amount quarter prescribed or other

during

period which (Em- of such added).

phasis must have intended legislature a cost- to former though even mis-