*1 Cоmmission’s port the Industrial P.2d 249 acci- did not sustain an that the claimant DOLPH, Jerry Claimant-Appellant, caused an while work which dent sufficient evidence hold that there was We COMPANY, finding. support HECLA MINING to Defendant-Respondent. I. No. 18606. AND PRIOR THE BACKGROUND Supreme PROCEEDINGS. Boise. miner Jerry Dolph employed as a 20, 1991. Feb. Monday Mining Company. On a Hecla had morning, Dolph he informed Hecla that Rehearing May Denied Fri- previous his at work the day had to a doctor. visited see following dаy re- and was a doctor specialist. This orthopedic to an ferred surgery performed arthroscopic specialist medial meniscus repair a tear of the re- Dolph attempted left knee. so to do turn to work twice but unable pain his left He has knee. since. not worked Dolph made a claim for worker’s working benefits, stating that while sation really weak.” The Com- “got his left knee Dolph had first mission determined injury- acсident and suffered industrial Upon working Hecla. reconsider- while ation, first the Commission withdrew ruling and determined accident and suffered com- to workers’ thus was not entitled appealed. pensation.
II. COMPETENT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE FINDING. COMMISSION’S there is insufficient Dolph asserts that support evidence experience an unlooked for did disagree. We untoward event. we standard of review are bound d’Alene, Mitchell, Coeur T. John whether, construing the record follow claimant-appellant. pre favorably to Evans, Keane, Koontz, & Boyd, Simko Commission, there is before the vailed defendant-respondent. Ripley, Kellogg, for evidence to substantial Boyd F. filed the briefs. William findings. factual Ver the Commission’s Indus., 115 Idaho non Omark JOHNSON, Justice. (1989). “[I]n benefits, case. This is the claimant workers' entitled ‘accident,’ suffered an presented prove whether issue [claimant] undesigned, and un- i.e., unexpected, sup- ‘an competent еvidence was substantial *2 mishap, event, for BISTLINE, Justice, looked or untoward con- dissenting. occurs, industry nected with the in which it Jerry Dolph had worked as a miner for and which can be located as to Mining Company Hecla years nine for occurred, place time when and where it ” when on December gave 1988 his knee causing injury.’ Id. at 767 P.2d working out while Dolph a mine. sub- (quoting 72-102(14)(b))pres- at 1264 I.C. § mitted a claim for compensation workers’ ently 72-102(15)(b) I.C. as of 1/1/90. benefits, which employer his self-insured The Commission’s decision includes this Dolph denied. then filed a claim with the finding: Commission, Industrial and the Commis- The proof Commission finds that sion ultimately ruled that was not does not mishap establish a or event entitled to for his required by which is law in order for an cause he specific was unable to ato accident to have occurred. The Claimant specific occurring describes no or event mishap on Decеmber event 2, 1988, which occurred on December tearing which caused the of the medi- proof shows that Claimant’s al meniscus of his left knee. R. 77. This gradually painful became and was ruling reversed the Industrial Commis- extremely painful at the conclusion of his sion’s first determination that work shift. history The claimant has a suffered an majority industrial accident. A injuring the knee in and he testi- of this Court affirms the Industrial Com- experiencing prob- fied that he was some mission’s Dolph. My denial of benefits to leg lems with his days prior a few inability join that affirmance is based on December 1988. The Claimant com- First, majority places two reasons. plained problems to his co-worker of wrong inference on the evidence in the his knee at the commencement of the Second, appeal. record on this work shift on December 1988. implicitly agrees with the Industrial Com- Commission is unable to find that interpretation mission’s incorrect of the re- cartilage torn in the Claimant’s knee was quirements coverage under Idaho’s by mishap or event which oc- curred on December workers’ law.
While there is evidence the record that would have allowed us to sustain a I. APPEAL INFERENCES ON FROM of the Commission that did sustain THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION job an accident on the that would have majority begins its review entitled him to worker’s by stating general principle appel- case there is also substаntial applicable late review civil controver- dence in to the record the Commis- appeal sion’s did sies—that the record on not sustain an job. sympa- While we are pre- thetic to it is the Commis- general principle ap- vailed below. This function, ours, sion’s to determine pellate crept review into workers’ entitled to workers are sation law in the case of Hazen v. General based on the facts of each case. Store, majority opinion but the is not counterba-
III. principle lanced of our fundamental CONCLUSION. law that it “shall be injured favor of the We affirm the of the Commis- decision 72-102, employee, and ... that one sion denying Dolph’s claim for worker’s requirements principal of the work- compensation. men’s is that insofar as law We appeal award costs on to Hecla. possible workman shall be re- propеr BAKES, C.J., stored to health reasonable and and BOYLE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur. treatment.” Lumber Steinebach v. Hoff Stores, employees”); 381 of Mayo Safeway Inc., (1977) (citations majority's general princi- (1969) (“[t]his repeatedly
decision
utilize a
civil case
court has
stated
put
ple
in order to
all inferences
favor of
that this law is
in a
winning party
objects
workers'
pro
with a view to effect
*3
recognizing
492,
the
of
without
intent
justice”);
Haynes,
In re
95 Idaho
mоte
provide “sure
re- 496,
309,
(1973) (“construing
that law to
and certain
511 P.2d
313
(I.C. 72-201) may make
lief”
the Court’s
compensation,
in
of
liberally
the Act
favor
of workers’
cases
review
findings of
opinion
we are of
that the
the
stamp
more
it al-
even
of
rubber
than
sup
the
Accident Board are not
Industrial
ready is.
record”);
ported by
v. Amal
the
Rohnert
Co.,
763, 765,
gamated
95 Idaho
519
Sugar
problem
by majority’s dis
raised
the
432,
(1974) (“[tjhis
P.2d
held
434
Court has
of
regard
the inference this Court and the
times
many
that workman’s
Industrial Commission are
to
liberally
are
in
statutes
to be
construed
from the
the law in
draw
evidence and
workman”);
favor of the
L.
Goodson v. W.
is similar
cases
to
Co.,
264, 266,
Hult
97 Idaho
543
Produce
concern raised in
v.
the
Brooks
Standard
167,
(1975)(“[tjhis
repeated
P.2d
court
169
Co.,
1066,
Fire Ins.
117 Idaho
793 P.2d
ly
recognized
policy
has
the
‘there
Brooks,
(1990). In
I
1238
noted that while
should
accorded to the
Com
be
Workmen’s
correctly,
the
had ruled
it had also
pensation
a broad and
construc
Act
liberal
implicitly
prior
overruled
least two
court
tion, that doubtful cases should be resolved
decisions. The
that I know
cases
of that
in
of
hu
favor
the
targeted by today’s majority
are
for the
purposes which
acts
to
mane
these
seek
heap
scrap
are more
recent
numerous and
leave
room for
technical
serve
no
narrow
than the cases overruled
I list
Brooks.
”);
Lum
cоnstruction’
Steinbach v.
here
the
them
convenience of and con
Hoff
431,
377,
Co.,
428,
98
P.2d
ber
Idaho
566
bar,
by the
sideration
Industrial Com
(“the
(1977)
380
workmen’s
mission, and of course the bench. The
liberally
be
in
of
law shall
construed
favor
last,
appears
recent case
most
and unlike
so
to
workman and
as
enhance
Brooks,
in
the most recent case overruled
rehabilitation
physical
economical
v.
from
1960’s: Smith Univer
injured employee”); Hattenburg
22,
26,170
404,
sity
67 Idaho
P.2d
of
(1977)
Blanks,
485,
98 Idaho
(1946)(“all
agreed
courts are
406
that there
times,
(“[ajs
many
this
held
Court has
be
should
accorded
Workmen's Com
liberally
Act
in
of a
is to be construed
favor
pensation Act a
broad
liberal construc
claimant”);
Department
Em
Smith v.
tion, that
cases
be
doubtful
should
resolved
of
520,
18,
521,
ployment,
602
100 Idaho
P.2d
compensation”);
favor of
Fitzen v.
(1979)(“[tjhe
Employment
19
Idaho
Securi
210, 216,
Top Dairy, 73 Idaho
249
Cream
help
ty
[part
72j
Title was enacted
Act
806,
(1952) (“a
P.2d
809
determination ...
hardships
alleviate the economic and social
upon
particular undisput
must be made
by unemployment which did not re
caused
liberally
ed facts
em
construed to include
employee____
sult from the fault of the
ployment
covered rather than exclude
[tjhe
liberally
Act must be
construed
it”);
Agency,
Employment
Mandes v.
Sec.
purpose”);
effect that
Parker v. St. Maries
28,
(1953)
1049,
Plywood, 101 Idaho
614 P.2d
(unemployment compensation coverage “is
(“consistent
(1980)
rule that
liberally
be
construed
favor
Employment Security Act must
the Idaho
employee”);
Forests,
Burch v. Potlatch
liberally
purpose
effect
Inc.,
353 P.2d
eco
helping
alleviate the social and
(1960)
(“[i]t is too well settled under the
hardships
unemployment
nomic
require
decisions of this Court to
cita
from fault
which does not result
provisions
tion of authorities that the
Sug
employee”);
Amalgаmated
Miller v.
Compensation
the Workmen’s
of this
Law
Co., 105
construed in favor
ar
672 P.2d
state
(1983) (“our
statute and
employee
case law re-
Court holds that an
fact
quire
legislative policy,
accord with
employee
independent
and not an
con-
tractor,
workmen’s
statutes are to be
breaking
it bends reason to the
favor of the
suggest
the law has been
claimant”);
Kinney
Tupperware
claimant,
construed in favor of the
but
fаcts were not!
(“[t]he
Worker’s
Act is to be
cases,
If the citation to 16
all of which
in favor of the claimant
supposed
are in
good standing and some of
purposes
humane
which it seeks
[and] [t]he
recent,
quite
bring
which are
does not
into
narrow,
to serve
leave
room for
techni-
application by
doubt the
of an
construction”);
cal
Haldiman v. American
winning
inference in favor of
Foods,
Fine
*4
cases,
compensatiоn
consider this.
(1990)(“[f]or
seventy years
almost
If one takes the time to trace the first use
this
principle
Court has adhered to the
of this
in
inference workers’
the worker’s
law should be
law, one notices that
the first use is a
liberally
in
favor of the claimant
occurrence,
recent
and the inference is ob-
object
in order to effect the
of the law and
realm,
viously a creature of the civil
for-
promote justice”);
Boundary
Yоunt v.
eign
to workers’
cases. The
County, 118 Idaho
quotes
approval
cites to and
(1990) (“[o]ur
Compen-
Idaho Workers’
Indus.,
from Vernon v.
115 Idaho
Omark
sation Act is to be
in
(1989),
accident on the
being
problem Dolph
As to the
majority
upholding
The
errs in
the Com-
point to the
time when
exact
able
denial of
mission’s
benefits because
occurred,
failed
Commission
ap-
incorrectly interpreted and
require-
or understand that
consider
72-102(14).
plied
provisions
of I.C. §
if
acci-
met
the result of the
ment will be
provisions
Those
state that:
point.
materializes
some identifiable
dent
[Effective until
72-102. Definitions
any analy-
also failed to make
The
January
1990].1
and terms
simply
conclud-
—Words
this issue.
Instead
sis of
law,
substantial,
in the
used
workmen’s
record
contained
ed
requires,
unless the context otherwise
acci-
evidence that there was an
fol-
in the
accident,
are defined
subsections
and that
or that there
dent
found,
low.
could be
it deferred
since both
choice
the two.
between
January
"injury”
provisions
and "accident.”
1. The definition
effective
not alter the
of the terms
1990 do
definitions
The Industrial
apply
accident must
the law to this issue.
requirement
that an
cite to Pinson v.
sufficiently
properly
at a
definite
shown to occur
Commission did
Dist.,
Highway
if either the cause of the acci
Minidoka
time is met
is
limited
time
dent
which stands for the
materializes at an
result of thе accident
can occur while
principle that an accident
Larsen,
point.
1B
Work
A.
habitually
identifiable
doing what he
employee
Compensation Law 39.00
men’s
necessary
for him to
does and that it is not
“Larsen”).
(hereafter
In
case the
slip
machinery to fail to
and fall or for
the accident materialized at
result of
Commission, how-
cause the
point. According to the Com
identifiable
Pinson
ever,
correctly aрply
failed to
fact, during the
findings of
mission’s
the facts of this case.
workday
on December
course
Pinson involved a workers’
increasingly
Dolph’s knee became
claim
vessel
that arose after
blood
by midday
limp
went
and felt
painful ruptured
claimant’s
while he was
brain
By
end
his shift his knee had
weak.
appellant
operating
jackhammer.
difficulty
quite painful and he had
become
highway
argued before this Court
district
ladder. R. 74.
exiting the mine on thе
accident.
there had been no
pinpoint exactly when
could not
opinion,
unanimous
the Court dismissed
Pike,
Dr.
an or
how the
occurred.
argument:
thopedic surgeon, testified that when
remaining contention is
Appellant’s
meniscus,
patient
a tear of the medial
that has been heretofore considered
one
big
until it becomes
does not notice the tear
occasions, appel-
by this court on several
instability
symрtoms.
enough to cause
no accident
urging
lants
there was
unable to
explains why
This
doing the
the deceased was
work
began.
exactly
the tear
pinpoint
*6
expected to do and in the manner
he was
pinpoint
Dolph cannot
The fact
that
un-
it is not an
contemplated;
that since
however,
not,
began
when the tear
does
a drill to become
occurrence for
usual
his
upon him the costs of
force
stuck,
there can be no ‘acci-
caught or
Dolph and
injury
is
fall,
slip,
a
or a
in the absence of a
dent’
to a defi
the Commission are able
a
part of the workman or
stumble on the
the result of the
nite time when
machinery
part of the
breakdown
39.30;
1B Larsen
See
materialized.
an ‘acci-
by him. To constitute
operated
Homes, 333 So.2d
v. Sherwood
Williams
necessary that
the work-
dent’ it is not
(claimant
assem
(La.App.1976)
756
machinery
the
slip оr fall or that
man
of
suddenly
he
lost use
bling an axle when
doing
what
An ‘accident’ occurs
fail.
continue
hand and was unable to
his left
any
if
unex-
habitually does
the workman
work;
explain what
he could not
undesigned, unlooked-for or un-
pected,
“give way,”
but he was
caused his hand
mishap, connected with
event or
toward
Con
disability);
permanent
total
awarded
employment, takes
growing out of the
Corp.,
Automotive Products
roy v. Carter
plaсe.
(Tenn.1982) (“when a condi
831
S.W.2d
Pinson,
at 1023
at
period
developed gradually
a
has
over
(citations
resulting in a definite work-con
of time
nected,
injury it is an
unexpected fortuitous
Pinson, like the claimant
Just
Compensa
within the Worker’s
‘accident’
he
working as
injury
his
while
suffered
v.
Owens
compensable”);
is
tion Act and
the occurrence
habitually did and without
Bd.,
App.
Pa.
Comp.
Workmen’s
operation
failure
the
slip
or fall or
of
(it
overcoming the claimant’s resistance of the
body. overemphasizing that
There is no compensation law must be con-
strued in favor of the em- Steinebach, ployee. P.2d at 381. It should also remembered OLGUIN, per incapacitated Mark A. quo, concept, quid pro that the basic Malaxechevarria, son, conser and Dora underlying the crеation the Worker’s Olguin, A. Plaintiffs- vator for Mark worker, Act was Appellants, surrendering right his her to sue tort *7 damages employ- from his her obtain BURLEY, injured job, er in return and on would CITY John Banks OF Nay, just compensation. assured Robert 72-201; 1 Larsen Defendants-Respondents, 1.10. Judicial inter- pretation of the Worker’s and protection Act which erodes the afforded Shears, Webster, Mike J. Barton purpose worker undermines I-X, and Jane Does John of the Act. The workеrs have been Defendants. stripped right of their redress in seek damages jury or which a district court No. 18374. would award. Commission decisions and Supreme Court Supreme patently Court decisions un- Falls, Term. Twin October just erroneously whenever the worker is arbitrarily promised “sure denied the 5, 1991. March certain relief.” May Rehearing Denied of the Industrial The order and the remand- should be reversed cause
ed, the Commission should be instruct- awarding
ed issue benefits If industrial accident. respond, does the least
the Court not so