Leticia M. Salinas v. Bridgeview Estates

The majority reasons that the plain language of section 72-804 requires the commission to find Salinas was entitled to payment of compensation before the commission can find that Surety “discontinued payment of compensation as provided by law justly due and owing.” Thus, the majority denies fees because it concludes that the Commission did not find that Salinas was due the “payment of compensation as provided by law,” as required under Idaho Code section 72-804. While I concur in the majority’s reading of section 72-804,1 cannot concur in the majority’s factual finding that the Commission did…