*1 because the Commission did not sufficient for rationale EDWARDS, Rodger Claimant-Appellant, appeal. allow review decline the v. invitation to address whether I.C. 72-719 CONSTRUCTION, HAROLD L. HARRIS permits the Commission to increase a Employer, and Wausau Insurance award, pre- because the claimant did not Companies, Surety, Defendants-Re- serve the issue for spondents. I. BACKGROUND PRIOR

Supreme Court of Idaho. PROCEEDINGS. Rodger Ha- Edwards was (Harris L. rold Harris Construction Con- struction). injured Edwards his in a job-related accident in As a result injury, performed Dr. Workman sur- gery Following surgery, Edwards. returned to Edwards work. Edwards, Construction,

In Harris (Harris and Wausau Insurance surety) com- Construction’s entered into a pensation concerning agreement Edwards’s agreement injury. The permanent partial disability Edwards had a percent person of fifteen in- the whole cluding, to, physical impair- but not limited ment, $10,931.25. and awarded Edwards approved The agreement. injured again Edwards his back working while for Harris Construction. next Dr. year, Bjornson assigned Ed- impairment rat- ing thirty percent percent fifteen the 1983 Offices, Chtd., Law Goicoechea percent injury. and fifteen Falls, claimant-appellant. for Michael R. employ Harris Construction did not Ed- argued. McBride injury. wards after the 1989 Edwards French, Hopkins, Crockett, Springer & job earns less at his new than did while Falls, Hoopes, defendants-respon- for working for Harris Construction. Rippel argued. B. dents. Paul application hearing, seeking, among things, other a determina- JOHNSON, Justice. degree disability. This is a workers’ sixty found that Edwards was primary presented is propri- percent permanently disabled. Because ety appor- of the Industrial Commission’s had attributed half of tionment of impairment rating injury, an industrial when there half, thirty or preexisting physical impairment. cent, Co., Based on thir- Simplot The Commission also determined that J.R. ty-five we apportionment, preexisted vacate the Commission’s was due to arthritis that *2 60 basis, apportionment Commission and whether the injury. On this the is

1989 disability existing thirty-percent legal principles. accord with reduced Edwards’s by thirty-five percent. This left Ed- award finding the Commission in disability twenty with a award of caused the Weygint that Court to vacate very finding the award is similar to the reconsideration, a motion for part this finding crucial of the the denied. Edwards which Commission by the adopted appealed. stated: appropri- The Referee concludes that it is II. by apportion disability ate to the caused approximately non-medical factors the DID FOR NOT PRESERVE EDWARDS proportion disability same as is the due APPEAL WHETHER THE COMMIS- permanent physical impairment. to HAS UNDER I.C. SION AUTHORITY AN 72-719 TO MODIFY AWARD § Id. at 846 P.2d A FOR 1983 OF COMPENSATION case, adopted the In this INJURY WHEN DETERMINING following finding: PER- THE APPORTIONMENT OF considering medical After Claimant’s DISABILITY MANENT PARTIAL problems related factors to A 1989 INJURY. FOLLOWING back, pertinent fac- and his non-medical apportioning after Edwards asserts tors, ... the Referee finds Claimant disability has 60% his 1989 the Commission should is in of the whole which addition inju for his 1983 increased award have permanent physical impairment to argues that ry thirty percent. Edwards person. How- rating of of the whole 30% the Commission to I.C. 72-719 authorizes ever, also finds that is Referee do We decline the invitation to address so. permanent appropriate Claimant’s present Edwards did not this this issue. disability re- partial therefore, and, did issue to the Commission one-half, provisions by under the duced it for v. Pot preserve Webster Code, 72-406, due Section 1, 16-17, latch Forests attributed one- the fact that (1947). P.2d half Claimant’s rating of 30% III. previous inju- person to Claimant’s subsequent surgery ry DID NOT PROVIDE COMMISSION conclude, in Weygint: did the Court A SUFFICIENT RATIONALE TO correctly set forth the The Commission THERE IS DETERMINE WHETHER 72-406, but imposed under I.C. burden AND COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL apparently is known as applies then THE AP- EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT formula, Carey v. Clearwater Carey WHETHER PORTIONMENT Dep’t, 107 Idaho County Rd. INIS AC- THE APPORTIONMENT apportion the LEGAL WITH CORD EXISTING factors. disability by non-medical caused PRINCIPLES. nor gives no rationale The Commission is not that there sub- Edwards asserts for this basis support competent evidence to stantial and adopted formula apportionment the Commission’s in ISIF cases applied Court to disability following his 1989 partial manent ap- mechanically formula we conclude Weygint, injury. Based is- plied apportionment non-medical all a suf- did not sues. its for the decision ficient basis determine the not able to apportionment We are to review whether apportionment competent supported substantial upon findings based him provisions vacate that under the Unemploy- Compensation ment dealing with the Law. Potlatch had dis- charged twenty-six Webster after years, doing.so grounds supposed factors. nonmedical insub- ordination, *3 were thereafter 204, Weygint, 123 at Idaho established, never as is well demonstrated We also note that the Commission re- pages majority opinion over seventeen permanent disability apportioned duced the Holden, authored Justice with concur- injury preexisting because of Given, Miller, rences Justices Hyatt. degenerative rejected arthritis. We have Budge managed Chief Justice to contain the use of the formula in the man- pages, his dissent to four 68 Idaho at 17- here, ner the Commission and 20,187 P.2d Reading at 537-539. the same we are unable to discern how the Commis- transcript Holden, as Justice Chief Justice sion preexisting would have dealt with the Budge stated that he “could reach no other arthritis, degenerative if it had used anoth- conclusion than that claimant’s discharge Therefore, er wholly was attributable to his own acts and inappropriate it is give conduct.” aspect direction on this of the case. We (S.B. The Session Laws of ch. 203 trust carefully the Commission will 146) provided: No. appraise significance, any, if Be It Legislature Enacted degenerative in making appro- arthritis State Idaho: priate apportionment. SECTION 1. That Title Annotated, Code be and the same is here- IV. by adding amended a chapter new CONCLUSION. designated chapter containing as sections, 43-2201 and 43- We vacate the of the Commis- 2202, and to read as follows: sion’s decision in which the Commission 43-2201. SHORT TITLE.—This Act shall be known and may be cited as the disability and remand the case to the Com- ‘Unemployment Compensation Law.’ mission for further proceedings. Idaho Code 43-2202 encompasses a decla- We award appeal costs on to Edwards. ration public policy of state explains the need expected and concomitant bene- McDEVITT, C.J., and TROUT and 43-2408, reads, fits. part, Code in SILAK, JJ. concur. as follows: BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. 43-2408. PERSONAL ELIGIBILITY Justice Johnson’s citation to the case of personal eligibility CONDITIONS.—The Forests, Inc., Webster Potlatch conditions of a benefit claimant are [inter serves the salient that.... alia] purpose of bringing to the fore a revisit to (e) employment His is not due to the the law as it was in 1947and at which fact employment that he left his last time in history the war was over and the voluntarily good without cause connected schools, Idaho, including besieged were employment, with his or that he was with first year and second students. discharged for misconduct in connection employment: if Webster, After reviewing the conclusion separation such employment from is reached that there should be considera- claimant, wholly attributable to the ble concern putting that case into eligible. be determined to be service. Webster was not a law in suit sense of the usually scenario which comes might So that there remain no doubt as to mind. plaintiff Mr. Webster was to where this one member of the Court suit, stands, a law but rather claiming a worker good many it is clear that a rather modest entitlement to benefits opinions disposing due Court’s recent appealed prem- court stripped right monetary lower decisions on to seek dam- ages that the declines to address is- ise trial.1 not first sues were raised But, kept proba-

court. to be mind is the bility appears important

issue which should be decided cast aside “not raised in the trial

as court.” Court, proposition A better or for P.2d 99 any hearing appeals, would be to be LLOYD, Repre Donald Personal demanding perfection perfecting less sentative of the Estate of Clarence J. cases, especially appeals. This is true Swank, Plaintiff-Respondent, *4 one, remanding like this where the Court is proceedings. the cause for further Other- overuse “failure wise seems that DeMOTT, Gary Defendant-Appellant. A. hypothesis run may to have raised at trial” and rampant, dismay practitioners of lay relying to the of and detriment clientele Carter, Marjorie Thomas husband solely upon attorneys pro- chosen their wife; Idaho First National Bank of them evil. tect from all (Escrow Department); Inter Caldwell Input practicing of from members Ltd., Funding, corpora state a Nevada would be welcome could be bar agent, Mortgage and its National turn, may be immense benefit. what Boise, Idaho; Terrace attorneys, equally trial best Ranch, Inc., Lakes an Ida Recreational courts, for the Idaho would beneficial corporation; Equivest, ho First intimate needs be for the Court to corporation, Defendants. preserved. that an issue is done assure relatively ob- It would seem that where issue have eluded counsel scure Appeals of Idaho. pres- proceedings, unless it 2, 1993. sandbagging, ents a clear-cut case (Rule achieving justice interests of Rehearing July Denied Procedure) best Rules of Civil will be allowing that to be aired served by way appeal, ab- proceedings

further prejudice actually be any extreme sent party. to an adverse I.C. question To avoid the whether permits the Commission to 72-719 crease a insufficient claimant’s ground the claim must be asserted over in the first instance elevates form readily understood substance. It law, compensation whol- why, especially in proceeding, purely administrative ly and technicality on such slim a worker should thereby of his sure and certain deprived forget ought not

monetary relief. One been, promise the worker has relief, of certain and sure administrative majority opinion. readily stated in Part I of the giving rise to Edwards’ 1. The circumstances See at concise claim indeed