• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

He Got Workers’ Comp, But Now He Wants More: Court Says …

Tom D'Agostino
By: Tom D'Agostino
  • Share on

About the Author

Tom D’Agostino is an attorney and legal editor who has more than 30 years of experience writing about employment law, disability law and education law trends. He earned his B.A. degree from Ramapo College of New Jersey and his J.D. from the Duquesne University School of Law. D’Agostino, who is a member of the Pennsylvania bar, is a past member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities Committee. He has provided technical assistance in the production of segments for television’s ABC World News and 20/20, and he has been quoted in periodicals including USA Today. He is also a past contributing author of Legal Rights of Persons with Disabilities: An Analysis of Federal Law, which is a comprehensive two-volume treatise addressing the legal rights of people with disabilities. Tom is passionate about baseball and authentic Italian food. When not writing, he enjoys spending time with family.

Show Less
Last Updated: August 9, 2024
3 minute engagement

Idaho’s highest court upheld a finding that an employee who received workers’ comp benefits was not further entitled to total and permanent disability benefits as well.

While working for Dependable Auto Sales in late March of 2018, Robert Nelson injured his back while lifting a garage door.

An x-ray showed degenerative disease of the lower spine, and a doctor issued a diagnosis of “acute back pain with left radiculopathy.”

Employee Files for Workers’ Comp Benefits

Nelson stopped working and filed a workers’ comp claim in mid-April of 2018. In the same month, he had an MRI that showed degeneration at his L5-S1 joint. A doctor said that lifting the door probably caused a flare-up of arthritis and a possible disc bulge in his back. Nelson never went back to work.

In August of 2018, the employer hired a doctor to perform an independent medical examination. That doctor said Nelson’s back problems were caused by his morbid obesity and were unrelated to work.

That doctor also said the door-lifting injury would have resolved in a few weeks, adding that Nelson could return to work with no restrictions.

A third doctor later agreed that Nelson’s back problems were unrelated to his work.

A fourth doctor then said that the work injury caused a permanent impairment and assigned an 11% permanent partial impairment.

Before the March 2018 injury, Nelson had suffered knee, ankle and shoulder injuries.

Vocational Assessments Differ

A vocational assessment made in December of 2020 concluded that Nelson was totally and permanently disabled, but another one completed in July of 2021 found he had no restrictions as a result of the March 2018 injury.

After an April 2018 workers’ comp claim was settled in September of 2019, Nelson filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits in March of 2020.

At the hearing on that claim, it came to light that he had been charged in 1996 with felony insurance fraud in connection with a workers’ comp claim and had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in that matter.

The referee who heard the later claim for total and permanent benefits determined that Nelson was not a credible witness and that his claim should be denied. The referee noted that Nelson had provided inconsistent testimony.

Application for Benefits Is Denied

A state commission adopted the referee’s recommendation and denied his claim for benefits. It said Nelson did not show that he was totally and permanently disabled or that he suffered a permanent impairment as a result of the March 2018 accident. Nelson then filed an appeal, which reached the Supreme Court of Idaho. He said the commission improperly found that he was not a credible witness, and that the finding improperly influenced its decision.

The question on appeal, the reviewing court explained, was whether “substantial and competent” evidence supported the commission’s determination.

The court noted that a preexisting permanent impairment is not an absolute bar to the recovery of total and permanent disability benefits. But to recover, a claimant must show that the combined effects of the preexisting injury and the work injury resulted in total and permanent disability – or that the work injury “aggravated or accelerated” the prior condition to cause total and permanent disability.

Reviewing Court Affirms Denial of Benefits

The reviewing court concluded that there was enough evidence for the commission to find that Nelson was not totally and permanently disabled.

It said that in evaluating Nelson’s credibility as a witness, the commission permissibly considered his 1996 misdemeanor conviction for insurance fraud.

Nelson argued that the conviction should not have been considered because it was irrelevant, but the court disagreed. It said that despite its age, the conviction went “to the very heart of this matter since it establishes Nelson previously lied in order to obtain workers’ compensation benefits.”

The order of the commission was affirmed.

Nelson v. State of Idaho, No. 50485-2023 (Idaho 8/6/24).

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free Training & Resources

White Papers

The Business Case for Maven Clinic

Provided by Maven Clinic

White Papers

2026 State of Leave and Accommodations

Provided by AbsenceSoft

White Papers

A Year of Employee Appreciation Ideas

Provided by Inspirus

White Papers

Inspirus — 2026 Q3-4 HR Trends Report

Provided by Inspirus

SPONSORED CONTENT

Compensation

Recruiting

sponsored content
Salary Benchmarking: 6 Choices That Decide Whether Your Pay Data Holds Up

Courtesy of MARSH

Employment Law

Policy & Procedures

sponsored content
Policy Rollout: 4 Checkpoints That Show Employees Got the Message

Courtesy of NAVEX

Benefits

Staff Administration

sponsored content
PEO ROI: 3 Numbers to Know Before You Leave Patchwork HR

Courtesy of TRINET

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
Black workers weren’t recalled after pandemic layoff: Hooters pays $650K

Hooters of Louisiana, LLC has agreed to pay $650,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation suit, the Equal Opportunity Employment...

  • Employment Law
ADA 35th Anniversary: Building Access and Inclusion at Work

On July 26, 2025, the ADA 35th anniversary marks a milestone for disability rights.  To this day, the Americans with Disabilit...

  • Employment Law
Supreme Court Sides With Starbucks, Deals Big Blow to NLRB

The Supreme Court just dealt a blow to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by making it harder for the federal labor agency to win ea...

  • Employment Law
Don’t do this: 2 new disability bias settlements produce $400K in payouts

Allegations of disability bias played a prominent role in two separate lawsuits that were filed and recently settled by the Equal Employmen...

  • Employment Law
Paternity leave mistake: DOL recovers $67K for new dad

A national company will pay more than $67,000 after making a paternity leave mistake that looked a lot like retaliation to the DOL’s Wage...

  • Employment Law
Can You Fire an Employee on FMLA Leave? 5 Times Courts Said Yes

What Courts Focus On When Employees Are Fired While on FMLA Leave Whether the termination reason was documented before the FMLA request...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.