Uhl v. Ballard Medical Products, Inc., 138 Idaho 653

67 P.3d 1265 (2003) · Supreme Court of Idaho · April 10, 2003 · No. No. 28286

Summary

The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of unemployment benefits to Michael Uhl, holding that he failed to prove good cause for voluntarily quitting his employment due to hand pain. The court also upheld the Commission's refusal to admit additional medical evidence, concluded that Idaho Code §§ 72-1366(4) and 72-1368(4) did not require benefits or a new hearing, and denied attorney fees.

Holdings

  1. The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit Dr. Wathne's post-hearing letter or grant a hearing to supplement the record because the evidence was available, and Uhl had adequate time and access to obtain it before the appeals examiner's hearing.
  2. Substantial and competent evidence supported the Commission's determination that Uhl failed to prove good cause connected with his employment for voluntarily quitting.
  3. Idaho Code § 72-1366(4) did not apply because Uhl's claim was denied for failure to prove good cause for voluntarily quitting, not because he was unable, unavailable, or not seeking work during a benefit week.
  4. Idaho Code § 72-1368(4) did not require a new hearing because the statute authorizes the Department Director to make a special redetermination, and the record did not show that Uhl had requested one.
  5. Uhl was not entitled to attorney fees because he did not prevail on appeal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by refusing to admit additional medical evidence or grant a supplemental hearing.
  2. Whether substantial and competent evidence supported the Commission's finding that Uhl failed to prove good cause for voluntarily quitting his employment.
  3. Whether Idaho Code § 72-1366(4) required the Commission to grant Uhl unemployment benefits.
  4. Whether Idaho Code § 72-1368(4) required that Uhl receive a new hearing or special redetermination.
  5. Whether Uhl was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (6)

  • Hughen v. Highland Estates, 137 Idaho 349, 48 P.3d 1238 (2002)(followed)
  • Quinn v. J.R. Simplot Co., 131 Idaho 318, 955 P.2d 1097 (1998)(followed)
  • Teevan v. Office of the Attorney General, 130 Idaho 79, 936 P.2d 1321 (1997)(followed)
  • Clay v. BMC West Truss Plant, 127 Idaho 501, 903 P.2d 90 (1995)(followed)
  • Moore v. Melaleuca, Inc., 137 Idaho 23, 43 P.3d 782 (2002)(followed)
  • Thomson v. City of Lewiston, 137 Idaho 473, 50 P.3d 488 (2002)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…