Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Davis v. Hammack Management, Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 2017No. Docket 43863Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Eismann

I concur in Part V.A that the Commission had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the Petition for Declaratory Ruling, and I dissent from Part V.B. because it is contrary to the applicable statutes and our prior decisions, including the decision upon which the majority opinion is based.

On June 6, 2014, Claimant, Surety, and ISIF entered into a stipulation to resolve Claimant’s workers’ compensation claim. As part of that stipulation, the parties agreed that Claimant became totally and permanently disabled on October 1, 2013. The Commission approved the stipulation and dismissed Claimant’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bower v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Wernecke v. St. Maries Joint School District 401Idaho Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Gordon v. GordonIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Emery v. J.R. Simplot Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API