*1 contract, parties for interference untutored put with it was held in Hoffman their deal “[p]rotection against together just is extended un- as businessmen do all over the justifiable country. interference with contracts even A recalcitrant seller was able to though renege, obliged by refusing the contract is voidable or unen- and this Court adversary proceeding." implied forceable in an to consider the doctrine of refer- (Footnote omitted.) parties Accordingly, the ac- ence. Here the were aided and against guided throughout by William and June Rehn should a skilled banker and not be affected ability the Whites’ a broker. The result is the same. enforce the contract Vernon and I dissent. Karen Rehn.6 While it is true assign Whites did not dismissal of this brief,
count as error in their it was so
clearly wrong to dismiss the count that this
Court
powers
should exercise
equitable
to correct the error.
parties agreed pur- would be sold and Unfortunately
chased. there is no feasible
way incorporate opin- the same into this But,
ion. known, as is generally not
clerk of this Court retains the file of this
case, including briefs, and interested
readers and may commentators who have
occasion challenge later on to validity
today’s opinion can have the benefit of that
brief.
Seeing that opinion the Court’s in this legally
case is as untenable as Hoffman v. Inc., Company, supra,
S. V. I can cave-
at the trial bench and bar that it well
be impossible in attempt this state to real
estate having transactions without attor-
neys in constant attendance ab initio. The
contract,
property
prior
they
also note that the fact that the
Rehn were aware of the
protected
now in
purchasers.
the hands of William and June Rehn
not
as bona
See
fide
necessarily
specific performance.
does
Carney,
bar
Farm Bureau Finance Co. v.
Clanton,
The sale
(1980);
to William and June occurred after the
Samuel Coeur for de- fendant-respondent Industrial In- demnity Fund of the of Idaho. State McFADDEN, Justice.
In October 1978 Wesley claimant applied to the Industrial Commission for the modification of previously an award 6,1978, entered on January by the Industri- al sought Commission. The to be modified arose out of a entered into on December employ- between the claimant and the surety, Indemnity. er’s Industrial At this time, represented by claimant had been died, attorney who subsequently present after that did his counsel commence representation of him and seek modification previously entered award. compensation agree- The basis for the ment arose out of an industrial accident 23, 1975, September which occurred on at employed by Gary which time claimant was Appel falling at timber. On that date fell, stepped twisting claimant in a hole and his injury by back. He was treated for this Maries, Idaho, Dr. Thurston of St. thereafter referred to Dr. and Dr. Cooke, neurosurgeons Spokane, both Washington, physicians. as well as other Beyond to his back aris- ing from the the claim- physical impaired condition was also multiple sclerosis. disease — nuerologi- The claimant from has suffered multiple cal disorders associated with scle- rosis since 1963 to suffer and continues presently. from those disorders response employer’s to letters from surety, physicians aforementioned disability. rated the extent of the claimant’s July On Dr. Thurston rated the having permanent partial dis- ability equivalent of the whole man. to 20% report In his Dr. Thurston observed the ex- complicated by the evaluation was Keeton, Lewiston, Paul C. for claimant- istence of disorders associated appellant. physician’s in his sclerosis. He also stated Orofino, McNichols, report Michael E. for de- claimant is unable final fendants-respondents Gary Appel, employ- regular primarily because of return to work er, Cooke, his Indemnity surety. and Industrial sclerosis. August 5, letter of 1977 to surety, upon also based the contention that claimant rated the claimant at 20% has never been able to return to work whole man as a result of the sus- and never was properly for disabili- rated tained in the opined industrial accident and 27,1977, and on December was entitled disabled when to a disability, part the disorders associated with his multiple which should be assessed the em- *3 sclerosis are considered. Dr. Cooke doubted ployer and Indemnity Compa- Industrial the claimant meaning- could return to ny part and Special the Industrial employment. ful Lynch, Indemnity in his letter of Fund of the State of Idaho.” 17, October surety, to the rated the employer The and his surety answered the claimant at 15% of the whole application claimant’s hearing, denying for man. Dr. also following made the that he was permanently disabled to the comment: claimed, extent admitting disability but “I note that Dr. given Cooke has man, 17 V2%of the whole alleging and also twenty percent Sines a disability rating claimant, employer surety and
based on his back injury. Certainly it is compensatio. agreement entered into a difficult to work out how much of his on December approved; which was disability is due to demyelinating further, and that claimant had process impairments removal of the [destruction disabilities for which the myelin sheath of how much surety are not liable. It is to nerves] due to his injury.” back be noted in this did not execute agree- upon Based evaluations, these the claimant ment. and the employer’s surety compensa- in the agreement tion upon Special settled percentage Industrial Indemnity Fund also figure of separate 17 V2% filed its of the answer to the claimant’s whole man as application computation hearing, denying basis for the claim- award in agreement, disabled, ant was totally denying any preex- with payment subsequently being isting permanent approved physical by the as way law, defined denying of its and also January order of financial any party. application In his hearing and for modification, joined the claimant Spe- hearing A was held the Commission on cial Indemnity April 23, 1979, Fund of the State of Idaho at which time the Commis- (I.S.I.F.), asserting, inter alia: sion entered as exhibits Commission exhibit no. the file of I.C. Claim No. 131308 application “This for hearing brought (claimant’s file before the Commission re-
for the purpose of modifying a certain flecting compensation agreement signed by the approval, together correspondence
claimant
on December
physicians’ reports
relating
various
thereafter
approved by the Commission.
to the
September
claimant’s
upon
Based
a change in condition in that
1975);
(the deposi-
Commission exhibit no. 2
the claimant
is now and has been ever
tion of Dr. Lynch
request
taken at the
since the time of the accident a total
Indemnity Company,
Industrial
on Febru-
permanent disability.
ary
1979, prior
hearing);
to the
application
That
hearing joins
this
(answers by
defendant’s exhibit no. 3
claim-
Indemnity
Industrial
Fund for
interrogatories).
ant to defendant’s
In ad-
part
the reason that a
of claimant’s dis-
exhibits,
dition to the
the Commission also
ability is related to the accident and a
testimony
heard the
of claimant and Dr.
part
is related to
sclerosis. The
Thurston,
attending
Walter D.
claimant’s
two causes have combined to render
physician.
claimant
a total
disability.
That
compen-
is entitled to
findings
Commission entered its
29,1976,
sation from and after November
fact and conclusions of
and its order
denying
application
Reiterating
claimant’s
for modifica-
the situation we
dealing
compensation agreement.
with,
Fol-
employer’s
claimant and the
sure-
lowing this order
perfected
compensation agreement
entered into a
appeal.
approved by
which was
the Industrial Com-
time,
mission. At that
I.S.I.F. was not a
primary
presented by
issue
appellant
agreement.
to the
The record disclos-
is that the
refusing
Commission erred in
es that at
the time the
grant
previous
a modification of the
into,
entered
had before it
sought
application
in his
hearing.
for a
opinions
the fact that
of the claim-
Correlative to this basic
ques-
issue is the
attending physician
and one neurosur-
tion of whether
the Commission erred in
geon
disabled,
claimant was
construing
provisions
of I.C.
72-7191
yet
the Commission on the basis of the
in entering its conclusions of law.
agreement approved the award of 17
recognized
It is well
compen
that a
man,
given
the whole
with no consideration
agreement approved
sation
by the Industri
as to whether or not
should be
made
*4
al
equivalent
Commission is
to an award
facts,
party.
only
a
this
Under
state of
under
the Idaho Workmen’s
employee
and his surety
Laws.
Dep’t
I.C.
72-711.
§
Finance v.
rely upon
finality
could
of that award
484,
Union Pac. R.
61 Idaho
judi-
under
72-711 and 72-718. Res
I.C. §
(1940) (decided
provisions
under
of I.C.
only
parties
applicable
cata is
to the
to that
72-602,
1940,
as it existed in
§
which stat
proceeding
privies.
and their
Pocatello In-
ute was reenacted almost verbatim in 1971
West, Inc.,
Park v.
101 Idaho
dustrial
Steel
appears
72-711).2
and now
as I.C.
This
§
783,
(1980);
Initially, foregoing under the change finali ground an award “on the of a rule, 72-607, arises as to the effect of as it ex- condition.” See I.C. § 1971; presented I.C. 72-711 on the prior facts here. § isted to see also S.L. Ch. 72-719, commission, (3) provides on 1. I.C. enacted in The its own motion at § pertinent part: any (5) years five of the date of the time within causing injury or date first “(1) agree- Modification of awards disease, may occupational an manifestation of ments —Grounds—Time within which made. review a case in order to correct a manifest injustice.” (See —(1) application by An made in in- pri- as it § I.C. 72-607 existed any terest filed with the commission at time 1971.) or to (5) years within five of the date of the acci- ..., causing ground dent on the Agreements.— 2. I.C. 72-711. § condition, change may, the commission employee If and the afflicted months, (6) but not oftener than once six compensation agreement in to reach an order, any agreement upon review any or award law, agree- a memorandum of the under this following grounds: commission, and, filed with the if ment shall be (a) Change in the nature or extent of the it, by thereupon approved the memorandum disablement; employee’s injury or or purposes com- (b) for all be an award shall Fraud. provi- be enforceable under the (2) may mission and The commission on such review 72-735, pro- ending, diminishing unless modified as sions of section make an award ing or increas- compensation previously agreed upon 72-719. An shall vided in section awarded, subject approved when the or to the be the commission maximum and mini- provided provisions mum in this and shall make its to the of this law. terms conform fact, findings rulings prior (See of law and order or 72-602 as it existed to § former I.C. award, 1971.) file the same in the office of the com- mission, immediately copy send a thereof parties. to the obvious. p. subsequent Webster’s Third New recodifica- Internation- § tions and amendments. the 1971 Dictionary, “Injustice” 1967. al has been act, effect, provides now in for modification justice; defined to mean: absence of viola- agreements following of awards and on the another; rights or of the grounds: unfairness; deed; iniquity, unjust or act “(1) (a) Change .... nature or wrong. Webster’s, Third New Internation- extent employee’s injury or dis- Dictionary, al ablement; (b) Fraud.” Giving injustice” the term “manifest provides and also 72-719(3) as used in con I.C. a broad § “(3) commission, on its own motion struction, appear it would that the Commis .. . review a case order to correct fully obligation sion to failed consider its injustice.” manifest 72- § specific findings make and conclusions in 719(l)(a), (b) added.) (Emphasis thus, regard, this this case must be recognized Commission in its conclu- remanded to the to afford it sions of law applied that claimant for a opportunity again posi examine its modification of a regard. tion in this grounds on the change (I.C. of condition court, During argument it was this 72-719(l)(a)) and in order to correct a pointed specifically out that at the time the injustice (I.C. manifest 72-719(3)). As to approved ground modification, later the Com- agreement, it had its files the statement mission ruled: Thurston, in a letter claim contained *5 “Since Claimant knew at the time he attending physician, ant’s that claimant was signed the Agreement he totally Lynch, deposi disabled. Dr. in his multiple sclerosis, had the record does not tion, 1976, prior also stated that in to the support a modification of Compensa- the compensation agreement time that the was Agreement to correct a manifest in- executed, claimant was 90% disabled. The justice. Code, Idaho 72-719(3) Section surety, employer argument and his in covers situations where a worker suffers court, recognized also that the claimant a latent injury or disease not discoverable disability, suffered from total but asserted within the period.” limitations they that insofar as were concerned their In this it is the conclusion of the only responsibility (I.C. under the statute court that the Commission erred. 72-332) provided was for 17 xh%as statute, used in the the term As approved. which the Commission injustice” “manifest ground reopen as a for The employer surety pointed and out that ing and review of an order must be con findings by the the Commission that claim broadly. strued In Goodson v. L.W. Hult sclerosis was not condition Produce 97 Idaho 543 P.2d aggravated any way by in the industrial (1975), 169 this court stated: accident, that his back condition has not “This repeatedly recognized court has changed since compensation the date of the policy the that ‘there should be accorded agreement, and that claimant’s condition the Workmen’s Act would be the same whether or not he had construction, broad and liberal that accident, suffered the industrial were doubtful cases should in favor be resolved agree fully by sustained the We evidence. compensation, of and that the humane point. with this latter purposes serve which these acts seek to leave no room technical con- for narrow Nonetheless, finding by the the Idaho, University struction.’ Smith v. of was that claimant’s condition 22, 26,170 (1946).” 67 Idaho 406 P.2d aggravated any way by the industrial not the wholly is not determinative of accident ca- “Manifest” has been defined to mean: responsibility of the in this action. recog- I.S.I.F. pable being or easily of understood obscure; 72-332(1) mind; provides pertinent part: by nized at once the compensation “If additional employee permanent long who has a benefits after physical impairment from any cause or the initial employer the and origin, subsequent incurs a disability by surety regard, had been entered. In this arising an injury . . . out of and the the case similar the of instant case by course of his employment, and reason Forests, Inc., Anderson v. Potlatch of the combined effects of both the In case preexisting impairment and the subse- paid permanent par- claimant had been quent injury ... reason disability tial under an with his aggravation and acceleration surety injury its for an to his preexisting impairment suffers total and Nonetheless, and arm. at hand permanent disability, time, previous injury resulting due to a surety payment shall be liable com- hand, loss of use the left the claimant pensation only benefits for the totally permanently disabled. ., caused . . injured and the years compensation agree- Three after the employee compensated shall be for the approved, ment and almost four remainder benefits accident, years the industrial after special out of indemnity industrial brought an action for additional (Emphasis added.) fund.” from the benefits statutory provision phrased This The court reversed Industrial Accident disjunctive, denying the claimant’s re- conjunctive. not in the If Board’s decision i.e., benefits, exists, quest observing either condition for additional ef- the files the Board disclosed occasioned the combined before fects of effects both combined subsequent the facts injury, preexisting injury or if had rendered the aggravation permanently disclose and acceleration disabled. 268-270, preexisting impairment by the industrial at at 862-863. P.2d then the of the I.S.I.F. Accordingly, cause was remanded findings arises. The Commission to determine further fact and with the conclusions dealt compensation. 77 Idaho at amount of ag- issue of the industrial accident whether at instant P.2d gravated preexisting condi- the claimant’s reflect some files before *6 It that tion. is the conclusion this court that the claimant was and evidence made the Commission should have also the permanently there hav- disabled. determination, i.e., first did the claimant’s of wheth- ing been neither a determination permanent disability and rea- arise a multiple er the sclerosis constituted both son of the combined effects of the (see Gugelman v. preexisting sclerosis) impairment (multiple Co., 102 Idaho Treated Timber Pressure subsequent injury and the sustained (1981)), whether the nor predicate of this industrial accident. The multiple the sclerosis effects of combined conclusion that if the determination is caused the industrial the made, also fol- may very well have it permanent disability, total and claimant’s manifest lowed that the initial award was a say court in Anderson we as the cannot injustice. is entitled to that the say could Thus, the to even benefits from I.S.I.F. Finally, important it is note that additional modification, is reversed and though of the Commission request denoted a the order proceedings proceedings truly were not for further the below the cause remanded I.S.I.F., if seeking previous any, action modification of a to determine proprie- expressed in really disputes award. one views No with the accordance and to be appellant of 17 Vz% to initial award opinion. this Costs employer to partial charged paid by I.S.I.F. Rather, more surety. case can BISTLINE, DONALDSON attempt to properly be as an SHEP- characterized ARD, concur. JJ. bring so as to secure party as a I.S.I.F. Justice, or
BAKES, latent disease not discoverable concurring Chief re- period. sult: the limitations In within this knew he suffered Claimant from opinion points out The Court’s that “the at the time he entered sclerosis findings by the that claimant’s Compensation Agreement.” into aggra- sclerosis condition was not interpretation Given Commission’s accident, any way by vated in the industrial 72-719(3), it is obvious that Com- § I.C. changed that his back condition has not believed that it could not under mission compensation agree- since the date of the ment, modify circumstances the settlement these claimant’s condition would agreement. correctly the Court con- be As the same whether or not he had suffered cludes, however, the erred in fully were all sus- narrowly. Therefore, interpreting tained I statute so by the evidence.” con- cur with Court’s ultimate decision is several Idaho one of states have grounds there are no modification allowing compensation statutes workmen’s between agreements to awards and settlement be surety claimant and the and its reopened the Commission. Some based on change either of condition or man- specific statutes forth circum- these set injustice. ifest modified, may stances which awards be “give the
Since while others Commission blanket Indemnity the Industrial power changes to awards as pro- Fund was not a make such ceeding, justified” “say request judgment are in its claimant’s for modifi- cation not may any good could be awards modified for directed toward it. The [be] Larson, majority states, acknowledges Compensa- when it cause.” Workmen’s ante at (1976). “the below were tion Law 81-52 at 15-546 not truly seeking an action purpose modification view of the of these fact previous Rather, award.... can the case is to statutes ensure that victims indus- more properly be characterized an at- protection adequate trial accidents receive tempt bring as party I.S.I.F. as to so compensation, approach is sounder secure additional benefits broadly power construe the Com- long after against initial award reopen mission to awards. Id. at 15-536 to surety had been entered.” 15-546. Cf. Goodson L. W. Hult Produce Thus, procedurally, nothing this case is more than claim filed the I.S.I.F. such, As subject the claim to all of the 719(3) gives 72— defenses which the have. power injustice,” to “correct manifest broad It is clear that the commission viewed grounds listing any specific than rather way, matter that accordingly con- *7 modification. In that it similar to cur in by majority the result reached (1980), provides Minn.Stat. 176.461 § opinion. part: in workers court “[T]he cause, appeals, any at time after an BISTLINE, Justice, specially concurring. award, upon application of either . . . ”
Although
72-719(3) gives
I.C.
Com- may
§
set the
aside
award
....
Wollsch-
power
mission the
to correct
in-
Co.,
550,
“manifest
lager v.
Const.
300 Minn.
Standard
justice,” the
this case ruled:
(1974),
N.W.2d 15 in which the Minne- Supreme sota Court stated: “In all cases Hanna, (quoting Employee 1 Law of In- determining the basic concern in whether juries and Workmen’s sufficient cause exists to set aside an award (2d (1980)). 9.02[2][a], at 9-14 rev. ed. § compensation proportionate to assure a to purpose compen- Given workmen’s degree disability.” and duration of the acts, approach sation it is clear that Id. at 16. by employed the Minnesota and California approach by An employed similar to that Supreme proper approach. is the Courts Supreme the Minnesota has Court power reopen has the to an The Commission adopted by Supreme the California Court any award or a settlement at statute, interpreting reopening its which al- period year the five set forth in time within “good reopened lows awards to be 72-719(3), whenever circumstances I.C. (West cause.” Cal.Labor Code §' ineq- exist which render 1971). commonly Grounds held to consti- Cf. Pullman v. Industrial Ac- uitable.1 Co. good tute cause are: Commission, 28 170 P.2d cident Cal.2d “(1) fact, fail- by mistake of occasioned (Cal.1946). produce ure or inability to certain evi- agree- prior hearing; dence at a states the settlement The Court mani- “may very ment well have (2) by [been] mistake of law disclosed subse- mind, however, it is injustice.” my fest To quent appellate ruling court on the same case; join the failure to the I.S.I.F. in point in another clear that original proceedings constitutes “mani- (3) inadvertence, Appeals when In this injustice” as a matter of law.2 fest Board issues a decision under the mistak- case, given a 15% Mr. was impression en Medical Bureau case; rating report had made an adverse Dr. 20% rating by Thurston for the (4) which is newly discovered evidence accident. cumulative; resulting from the industrial back merely more than Agreement approved fraud, (5) perpetuated such as be prepared on the basis the Commission through false statements.” perjury and obvious disability, of a of 17V2% v. Worker’s Nicky Blair’s Restaurant However, Board, agree I with compromise. Cal. Compensation Appeals it, just worry A. He told me not to about Although approach in Minnesota 1. used sound, juris- signing anything cases from those it wasn’t—I wasn’t California away signed circumstances dictions which list certain I it.” when reopened expe- be attorney can be should not competent which awards reasonable A limiting any way power taken as handling workmen’s rience in when, reopen in its awards pursued issue of cases would have manifestly unjust. judgment, an award is part from the outset. on the disability and I.S.I.F. issue of claimant’s total involvement, however, serious As in the Landon there is a presented was not counsel. as to ineffective assistance of hearing Mr. Sines’ until the on the Commission application testimony of Mr. Sines was The úncontradicted Compensa- modification of 'the as follows: point, Agreement. At that the Commis- Sines, agree- you signed when “Q. was foreclosed sion’s consideration of the issue Page you 1 Exhibit were ment which is represented by lawyer? improperly interpretation limited its own 72-719(3). then, hospital A. Carl Buell. He was in the judicial notice of its own bound to take itself is He died after had cancer of liver. pertaining Anderson v. Potlatch files to a case. Well, dying he then. that. knew was Forests, Inc., *8 you you agreement, Did refer to the did Q. (1955). the of this case and 862 the facts Given you signed read it before it? Commission, it at the time the record before approved A. I couldn’t read it. Agreement the the explain you? Did someone it to Q. A. responsibility the to raise had the it, signing, him I was asked about what disability, regardless of issue of claimant’s just as I am. He he was about as blind attorney. by his raised that issue was whether eyes. had cataracts bad on his though? explain you, Did he it to Q.
17 into, totally was entered Mr. was impairment due Sines Court that the claimant’s notes, determined, the Court properly permanently the back was disabled. As injury surety disputed the judicata it is res that the or its therefore neither impairment resulting physical only Their contention was that this fact. from How claimant’s back is 17V2%. only responsibility under I.C. 72-332 their ever, certainly only that was not the issue impairment physical was that 17V2% which in this should have considered testified attributable doctors was case. The law Idaho is that clear The notes that Dr. accident. Court also evaluating permanent disability, Thurston, who had treated physician impairments, just physical claimant’s years, Mr. for several was Sines that which ensues from the industri recent (be- opinion that as of December al injury, must be 72- considered. I.C. settlement was entered fore the 332; Lyons v. Industrial Indemn. into), totally Sines was disabled. The Mr. Fund, 1360, 1363 testimony Lynch supports of Dr. this con- (1977). The do so Commission did not clusion: this case. Doctor, “Q. you’re speaking when Fact, percent impairment, you As a Finding of speaking impairment stated: was not occa- a result of hired on one “[Sines] you’re sion potential speak- because he disclosed to Is what the accident? that employer that had multiple ing he sclerosis.” of? Thus, although prior to the acci- industrial relating to, yes. A. That’s all I’m dent carry Mr. Sines was able to all the out Now, Q. has much more Mr. Sines lumberjack, duties of a as a matter it, bodily impairment, bodily I take than his multiple perma- sclerosis constituted a accident; impairment resulting from physical impairment. nent Gugelman See he not? does Pressure Treated Timber 'Correct. A. Commission, Q. bodily you What would consider his however, did not take Mr. into account Si- taking consideration into nes’ pre-existing physical impairment ap- rate percent you as a direct proving compensation agreement. If it of the accident and the result had, the certainly would have sclerosis combined? totally concluded that Mr. Sines was altogether. Ninety percent A. permanently disabled as a result Q. youDo he is believe that able to do industrial accident. work any at this time? Although the Court states that “[i]n could, A. I don’t no. believe he instant files before the Commis- Q. you time do long For how think sion reflect evidence some that has existed? disabled,” (em- totally permanently was appears unchanged He A. to be from phasis added), clearly the evidence estab- January on my examination of lished that Mr. was in Sines fact years so it’s existed for three now. And I undisputed permanently disabled. It was expect go indefinitely.” would on following his industrial Mr. accident added.)3 (Emphasis Sines was able to work. never return to
Furthermore, only real in this my review of the indi- case is record cates dispute was essentially there no whether Sines’ total before the The fact Commission caused industrial accident. that at the time settlement resulted in that the industrial accident testimony bodily acknowledges impairment rating 3. The Court had a total Dr. 90% Lynch, stating Lynch impairment resulting Dr. testified that when the from the 15% Court, “Claimant was disabled.” The with Mr. Si- was combined 90% however, appears to confuse with im- nes’ sclerosis. pairment. testified that Mr. *9 very equitable power perceive to be a broad way precludes in no a 17%% legislature upon finding disability total resulted the Com- conferred evi- it should be. It must be from the accident. substantial mission. This is as stage is that the combined in the field dence the record that at one remembered law, appeals sclerosis and the Compensation effects of the of Workmen’s claim- industrial accident did in fact cause proceed directly from Commis- did not disability. Up Court; permanent Supreme total claimants sion into accident, until the time of the appeal “to the first entitled to take an were However, following the county was able to work. which the of the district court accident, return was never able to the case was thereaft- injury occurred” and The fact that Mr. Sines’ to work. limited to by the court in a review er tried eventually resulted sclerosis would have Annotated Idaho Code questions of law. regardless of the accident is total (1932). The district court 43-1408-1409 §§ and can- naught happenstance but a mere to have specifically authorized negate his to receive not be said to error” which was to irregularity or “any permanent dis- compensation for assume damage party. I would and circum- ability under the actual facts also have used district court could that the they did occur. stances powers to avoid equitable its inherent injustice the occa- manifest had correct a portion is liable for that the I.S.I.F. Since necessitating that it do so. sion arisen of the claimant’s total not attributable equal con- today, with Similarly, I assume i.e., pre-ex- to his portion attributable fidence, legislature impairment, the failure to isting physical Commission, is now the mind settlement join the resulted in a I.S.I.F. has access to which a claimant only tribunal unjust. manifestly agreement which was Court, same have the should other than Thus, like the in the Landon court in powers of a district equitable broad ap- supra, in this case sure providing its function order to fulfill unfair, I would its face to be pearing on working injured relief for and certain up process speed prefer that Court Hence, important isit man or woman. directing entry of a modified award of its the extent realize the Commission which includes the which, makeup, it can by its power, power I feel certain that effectively adminis- competently and most opin- upon the Court’s will look with favor handing down that until the I surmise ter.4 is another in a series ipn, my which in view today’s opinion, in what is a some- enlightened opinions some doubts. have had Workmen’s unexplored area of Idaho’s what as- veryA worrisome law. provision which pect of I.C. 72-719 is that proceeding “to correct say
seems to that a by the injustice” will be made
manifest I under- on its own motion. holding today that we are
stand our claimants, and in
making it known that instances, sure- employers and their
some
ties, making the precluded from are not motion, triggering what I thereby
same knowledge experience in Work- lation of recently v. A. & T. mentioned in Heese 4. As I law, amounting sense to a (1981), Trucking, men’s way another is but fairness —which of intuitive is learned one member of the Commission equitable ability declaring to award qualifications their possessing injustice has occurred. judges justices, a manifest required the other relief where possessed of a vast accumu- two members