Seamans v. Maaco Auto Painting & Bodyworks
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SILAK, Justice.
This is an appeal from an Industrial Commission (Commission) decision in a worker’s compensation case. The Respondent Dale Harris Seamans (Seamans) seeks compensation for injuries he allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with Appellant Maaco Auto Painting & Bodyworks (Maaco) caused by falling from Maaco’s roof. Although the Commission found that it could not determine whether Seamans’ fall was accidental or intentional, it found that Sea-mans had proven a compensable accident. We affirm.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Seamans worked for Maaco from 1978 to 1991. On…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1994
- Hawley v. GreenIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
- Madron v. Green Giant CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Evans v. Hara's, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1993
- Neufeld v. Browning Ferris IndustriesIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Zapata v. J.R. Simplot Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1999
- Page v. McCain Foods, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2005
- Spivey v. Novartis Seed Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2002
- McCabe v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2007
- Willey v. Williamson ProduceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.