Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-1353 (2026)

Administrative determinations of coverage.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Administrative determinations of coverage.

(1) The director may, upon his own motion or upon application of any employer, make findings of fact and on the basis thereof determine whether such employer is a covered employer and whether services performed for or in connection with the business of such employer constitute covered employment. The determination shall become final unless, within fourteen (14) days after notice as provided in section 72-1368(5), Idaho Code, an appeal is filed with the department setting forth the grounds for such appeal. Proceedings on appeal shall be had in accordance with the provisions of section 72-1361, Idaho Code.

(2) In making any determination with respect to whether the services performed by a worker are performed in covered employment, the director may, on the basis of the available evidence, determine that other workers performing similar services for the employer are similarly situated with respect to the coverage of said services under the provision of this chapter, and that such services constitute covered employment.

(3) In any proceeding to determine whether an employer is a covered employer or whether services are performed in covered employment, it shall be the burden of the employer to prove that the employer is not a covered employer, that services were not performed in covered employment, or that workers are not similarly situated with respect to the coverage of their services.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1963–2009 · leading case: Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Com. & Labor, 179 P.3d 1071 (Idaho 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Com. & Labor, 179 P.3d 1071 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “" I.C. § 72-1353(2). In doing so, the Commission must reach individualized findings as to each group of similarly situated workers based on the legally relevant facts.”

Henderson v. Eclipse Traffic Control & Flagging, Inc., 213 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 4× “, I.C. §§ 72-1353(1), 72-1357(3), 72-1359, 72-1361, 72-1368, & 72-1372(3).”

State v. Concrete Processors, Inc., 379 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1963). · cites it 4× “” Defendant argues also, on much the same ground, that I.C. § 72-1353 is violative of our Constitution.”

Totusek v. Dep't of Emp., 535 P.2d 672 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 2× “§ 72-1351; they do not determine whether one is a “covered employer,” pursuant to I.C. § 72-1353. Notification of a rate of contribution alone does not constitute a conclusive determination of the “covered” status of an employer.”

Beale v. State, Dep't of Labor, 79 P.3d 715 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 4× “When the Department determined that the Beales owed unemployment insurance contributions, it could have sought to collect such sums either by filing a lawsuit under Idaho Code § 72-1355 or by commencing administrative proceedings under Idaho Code § 72-1353 . 2 To collect the…”

— Idaho Code § 72-1353(1) — 1 case

Henderson v. Eclipse Traffic Control & Flagging, Inc., 213 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2009). “, I.C. §§ 72-1353(1), 72-1357(3), 72-1359, 72-1361, 72-1368, & 72-1372(3).”

— Idaho Code § 72-1353(2) — 1 case

Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Com. & Labor, 179 P.3d 1071 (Idaho 2008). “" I.C. § 72-1353(2). In doing so, the Commission must reach individualized findings as to each group of similarly situated workers based on the legally relevant facts.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.