Zapata v. J. R. Simplot Co.3/3/1999
e findings to support its reduction of the recommended rating; rather, it only needed to make findings to support the 17% rating.
In support of its determination that the disability rating was 17%, the Commission approved and adopted the findings of the referee. By so doing, the Commission made findings regarding Zapata's age, educational background, employment history, occupation at the time of injury, nature of the injury, subsequent impairment, work limitations, labor market, and the impact of her injury on her immediate and future ability to return to work. These findings provide ample basis for meaningful review of the Commission's Conclusion that Zapata has a 17% disability rating.
B. Substantial And Competent Evidence Exists To Support The Commission's Finding That Zapata Has Permanent Partial Disability Totaling 17% Of The Whole Person.
A determination by the Commission as to the degree of permanent disability resulting from an industrial injury is a factual question. See Sund v. Gambrel, 127 Idaho 3, 5, 896 P. 2d 329, 331 (1995); Thom v. Callahan, 97 Idaho 151, 157, 540 P. 2d 1330, 1336 (1975) (observing that the degree of permanent disability is a factual question committed to the particular expertise of the Commission.) As such, it will not be disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial and competent evidence. See Sund, 127 Idaho at 5, 896 P. 2d at 331.
There is substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's finding that Zapata has permanent partial disability of 17% of the whole person. As previously mentioned, the Commission made findings with respect to the following: Zapata's age, her educational background, her employment history, her occupation at the time of injury, the nature of the injury, the subsequent impairment, work limitations, the labor market, and the impact of her injury on her immediate and future ability to work. These, and other findings, provide more than a scintilla of proof and are relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a Conclusion. See Boley, 130 Idaho at 280, 939 P. 2d at 856. Therefore, we hold that there exists substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's finding.
Moreover, Zapata presents no authority in support of her argument that the Commission abused its discretion by modifying the disability rating. However, statutory and case law authority contrary to her argument exists. The Court has observed that, "it is the province of the Commission to decide what weight should be given to the facts presented and Conclusions drawn from those facts." Seamans, 128 Idaho at 751, 918 P. 2d at 1196. In addition, Section 72-506 of the Idaho Code establishes that a finding or award of a referee is not final and binding on the Commission; rather, those findings and awards are not deemed to be the Commission's until they have been approved and confirmed by the Commission. See I.C. § 72-506 (2). Further, I.C. § 72-717 establishes that the findings of a referee are only recommendations and must be submitted to the Commission for its review and decision.
V.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Commission is affirmed because the Commission made adequate findings to enable meaningful appellate review, and substantial and competent evidence supports the 17% rating. Costs on appeal are awarded to the respondent, Simplot, pursuant to I. A. R. Rule 40.
Chief Justice TROUT, Justices SCHROEDER and WALTERS, and Justice Pro Tem JOHNSON, CONCUR.
|