Idaho: Claimant Fails to Show Accident Was Predominant Cause of Need for Psychological Care

Reiterating the rule that the state’s Industrial Commission has broad discretion in weighing medical evidence and determining the credibility of conflicting expert opinions, the Supreme Court of Idaho, in a split decision, affirmed a Commission decision that a claimant had failed to establish entitlement to benefits for psychological care. The majority noted that pursuant to Idaho Code Ann. § 72–451, claimant must establish that the accident and injury were "the predominant cause of the need for psychological care, and not just one of several combined causes” [emphasis added]. Both sides presented expert medical testimony, but the Commission found that the expert presented by the employer/carrier was more credible than the expert presented by the claimant. That finding was based, at least in part, on the Commission’s finding that claimant’s expert had an inaccurate understanding of the predominant cause standard. The majority indicated claimant had not contended on appeal that the Commission erred in finding his expert had not used the appropriate standard of causation. It could not re-weigh the evidence.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Gerdon v. Con Paulos, Inc., 2016 Ida. LEXIS 156 (May 27, 2016)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 128.05.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site