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
- Lyons v. Industrial Special Indemnity FundIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
- Goodson v. LW Hult Produce CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
- Heese v. a & T TRUCKINGIdaho Supreme Court · 1981
- Gugelman v. Pressure Treated Timber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1981
- Pullman Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.