Stoica v. Pocol, 136 Idaho 661

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed an Industrial Commission decision finding that Petre Stoica was an employee of Daniel Pocol and that his employment was not exempt from workers' compensation coverage as casual employment or employment not for pecuniary gain. The court held that substantial evidence supported the employee classification and concluded that Stoica was entitled to workers' compensation benefits, attorney fees, costs, and a statutory penalty because Pocol lacked required coverage.

Holdings

1. The Industrial Commission properly found that Stoica was Pocol's employee because substantial competent evidence showed that Pocol retained the right to control the time, manner, and method of Stoica's work.
2. Stoica's employment was not casual and was not exempt from workers' compensation coverage under Idaho Code section 72-212(2).
3. Pocol's employment of Stoica was not exempt under Idaho Code section 72-212(6) because Pocol regularly remodeled and built residential property in a manner intended to increase his net worth.
4. Because Pocol failed to secure required workers' compensation insurance, Stoica was entitled to attorney fees and costs before the Commission and on appeal, as well as the statutory ten percent penalty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial competent evidence supported the Industrial Commission's finding that Stoica was Pocol's employee rather than an independent contractor.
2. Whether Stoica's employment was exempt from workers' compensation coverage as casual employment under Idaho Code section 72-212(2).
3. Whether Stoica's employment was exempt from workers' compensation coverage because it was not carried out by Pocol for pecuniary gain under Idaho Code section 72-212(6).
4. Whether Stoica was entitled to attorney fees and costs because Pocol failed to secure workers' compensation coverage.

Disposition

affirmed