Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32406 ) ) ) Claimant-Appellant, ) ) v. ) SCHOOL DISTRICT #21, Employer, and ) ) STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, ) Defendants-Respondents. ) JOEY PIERCE,

Eastern Idaho, October 2006 Term 2007 Opinion No. 98 Filed: July 30, 2007 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the State of Idaho Industrial Commission. Thomas E. Limbaugh, Chairman presiding. The decision of the Industrial Commission is affirmed. Larsen Law Office, Pocatello, for appellant. Steven R. Fuller, Preston, for respondents.

SCHROEDER, Chief Justice.

Joey Pierce, an employee of a roofing company that had contracted to repair school district roofs brought a worker's compensation claim alleging that the school district was his statutory employer. His claim was denied by the Industrial Commission. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Joey Pierce was a roofer employed by Jerry Kelly, a sole proprietor dba Top Roofing. Top Roofing contracted with School District #21 to repair the roofs of various school buildings. While repairing a roof on the gymnasium Pierce fell and was injured. Top Roofing did not have worker's compensation coverage; Pierce sought worker's compensation from the School District as his statutory employer.

The parties stipulated to bifurcate the issues in order to determine compensability of the claim before proceeding to other issues. An Industrial Commission referee heard oral arguments and evidence and recommended that the Industrial Commission find Pierce failed to prove that the School District was a statutory employer at the time of the accident. Commission agreed with this recommendation. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW "When this Court reviews a decision from the Industrial Commission, it exercises free review over questions of law, but reviews questions of fact only to determine whether substantial and competent evidence supports the Commission's findings." Spencer v. Allpress Logging, Inc., 134 Idaho 856, 859, 11 P.3d 475, 478 (2000) (citing Ogden v. Thompson, 128 Idaho 87, 88, 910 P.2d 759, 760 (1996)). "Whether the Commission correctly applied the law to the facts is an issue of law over which we exercise free review." Konvalinka v. Bonneville County, 140 Idaho 477, 478, 95 P.3d 628, 629 (2004) (citing Combes v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 130 Idaho 430, 942 P.2d 554 (1997)). III. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS A STATUTORY EMPLOYER The statutory employer provision expands the definition of employer in order to "prevent an employer from avoiding liability under the workmen's compensation statutes by subcontracting the work to others who may be irresponsible and not insure their employees." Harpole v. State, 131 Idaho 437, 440, 958 P.2d 594, 597 (1998) (quoting Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Prod., Inc., 107 Idaho 389, 392-93, 690 P.2d 324, 327-28 (1984)). This is consistent with the purpose of the worker's compensation law to provide "sure and certain relief for injured workmen and their families and dependents ... regardless of questions of fault." I.C.

Download pierce.pdf

Idaho Law