Smith v. Payette County

Citations: 671 P.2d 1081; 105 Idaho 618; 1983 Ida. LEXIS 531Docket: 14200

Court: Idaho Supreme Court; October 28, 1983; Idaho; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ardus M. Smith, a deputy county clerk employed by Payette County, sustained a back injury while moving a copying machine, leading to surgery funded by the State Insurance Fund (SIF). Following the injury, Smith received permanent partial disability benefits amounting to ten percent of the whole person. Subsequent surgeries, also covered by SIF, resulted in additional temporary disability benefits. After being discharged from her job while recuperating, Smith was unable to find work. She later filed an application for a hearing with the Industrial Commission, seeking 'odd-lot' status and the resumption of total temporary disability benefits. The Industrial Commission ultimately ruled that she was not totally and permanently disabled and denied further workmen's compensation benefits. 

During the hearings, the issues were narrowed to whether Smith was totally and permanently disabled and the timeliness of her application, the latter being resolved in her favor. The referee noted Smith's age (approximately 56), her education (high school graduate), limited typing skills, and her extensive work experience, including 13.5 years at Payette County. The referee concluded that, despite her limitations, there were still job opportunities available in the Payette area for which Smith was qualified. The decision was affirmed upon appeal.

A stable market exists for the claimant's services, despite limited job openings due to economic conditions. The claimant has not proven she qualifies as part of the 'odd lot' category or established total and permanent disability. The referee denied her application for additional workmen's compensation benefits, a decision upheld by the Commission. Following a reconsideration request, the referee recommended amendments to the original decision, which the Commission adopted. The claimant, approximately 56 years old and a high school graduate with limited typing skills, has relevant work experience totaling over 28 years, including roles at a bank and Payette County. After a medical operation in January 1979, she was referred to a rehabilitation specialist who assessed job compatibility. The area surrounding Payette, including nearby towns, was deemed reasonable for job opportunities she could accept, although current openings were scarce due to recession. The claimant did not demonstrate a permanent partial disability exceeding 10% related to her 1975 accident or subsequent surgeries. Under I.C. 72-425, the Commission evaluated her permanent disability based on her capability to engage in gainful activity, considering both medical and nonmedical factors. Medical evidence indicated a 10% permanent impairment, and she was medically cleared for office work that did not involve heavy lifting or prolonged standing. While the claimant contested the availability of jobs, the Commission retains discretion in weighing evidence. The claimant argues her case fits the 'odd-lot' category for total permanent disability benefits.

In the case Reifsteck v. Lantern Motel, the Commission ruled that the claimant did not qualify for 'odd-lot' classification, a decision that can only be overturned if not supported by substantial evidence. The Commission found that there were job openings suitable for the claimant, even though they were limited at the time of the hearing. The claimant's burden was to prove her permanent disability exceeded her permanent impairment; however, she failed to provide significant evidence supporting a disability greater than 10% of the whole person. Previous cases emphasized that permanent partial disability benefits aim to compensate for loss of earning capacity or reduced ability to work. Unlike another claimant in Baldner, who demonstrated a significant disability, this claimant only showed difficulty in finding work, which did not equate to a loss of earning capacity. The appellant's request for attorney fees was denied, and costs were awarded to the respondents. The evaluation of permanent disability must consider both medical impairment and nonmedical factors, though the Commission is not required to evaluate every nonmedical factor. The claimant's extensive experience and training in her field distinguished her from those in prior cases who could not perform their trained work.