Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sines v. Appel

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1982No. 13602Published

1Concurrence

BISTLINE, Justice,

specially concurring.

Although I.C. § 72-719(3) gives the Commission the power to correct “manifest injustice,” the Commission in this case ruled:

“Since Claimant knew at the time he signed the Compensation Agreement he had multiple sclerosis, the record does not support a modification of the Compensation Agreement to correct a manifest injustice. Idaho Code, Section 72-719(3) covers situations where a worker suffers a latent injury or disease not discoverable within the limitations period. In this case, Claimant knew he suffered from multiple sclerosis at the time he entered…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lyons v. Industrial Special Indemnity FundIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Goodson v. LW Hult Produce CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Heese v. a & T TRUCKINGIdaho Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Gugelman v. Pressure Treated Timber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Pullman Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API