In a recent post, we discussed Chavez v. Stokes, 2015 Opinion No. 64 (July 7, 2015), and the new standard of review governing the reasonableness of medical treatment in workers’ compensation cases. Chavez is also noteworthy for another reason: the Idaho Supreme Court granted attorney fees on appeal to the respondent worker because
In Chavez v. Stokes, 2015 Opinion No. 64 (July 7, 2015), the Idaho Supreme Court overturned prior precedent holding that the reasonableness of medical treatment in workers’ compensation cases is a question of law subject to free review. According to the Court, the Idaho Industrial Commission’s determination of reasonableness should be reviewed as a finding of fact under the substantial and competent evidence standard.
Chavez concerns an injured worker who was transported to a hospital by Life Flight. After the worker received a bill for the cost, he filed a complaint for workers’ compensation with the Commission. The employer disputed whether the Life Flight transport was reasonable under Idaho Code § 72-432(1) and whether he was responsible for the cost.
Continue Reading Is the Reasonableness of Medical Treatment in Workers’ Compensation Cases a Question of Law or a Question of Fact for the Purposes of Appellate Review?
LuAnn Shubert (“Shubert”) filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Idaho Industrial Commission (the “Commission”). Shubert’s claim was heard by a Commission referee, who excluded two of her exhibits during the hearing. For the most part, the referee denied her claim, and the Commission approved and adopted the referee’s findings of fact. Shubert appealed. One…