Declaration of police power.
The common law system governing the remedy of workmen against employers for injuries received and occupational diseases contracted in industrial and public work is inconsistent with modern industrial conditions. The welfare of the state depends upon its industries and even more upon the welfare of its wageworkers. The state of Idaho, therefore, exercising herein its police and sovereign power, declares that all phases of the premises are withdrawn from private controversy, and sure and certain relief for injured workmen and their families and dependents is hereby provided regardless of questions of fault and to the exclusion of every other remedy, proceeding or compensation, except as is otherwise provided in this act, and to that end all civil actions and civil causes of action for such personal injuries and all jurisdiction of the courts of the state over such causes are hereby abolished, except as is in this law provided.
Notes of Decisions
Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 76 P.3d 951 (Idaho 2003).
· cites it 8× “I.C. § 72-201. [1] However, while providing "sure and certain relief" to workers, the Act also limits the liability of employers.”
Rhodes v. Indus. Comm'n, 868 P.2d 467 (Idaho 1993).
· cites it 16× “The purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act, enacted under the broad canopy of the police power, is stated in I.C. § 72-201 to provide "sure and certain relief for injured workmen and their families.”
Hazen v. Gen. Store, 729 P.2d 1035 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 8× “I.C. § 72-201 (1939-70) (emphasis added).”
Cook v. Cook, 637 P.2d 799 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 8× “I.C. § 72-201; Gifford v. Nottingham, 68 Idaho 330 , 193 P.”
Baker v. Sullivan, 979 P.2d 619 (Idaho 1999).
· cites it 7× “See I.C. §§ 72-201, 72-209, 72-211. Respondents also asserted that the claim was barred by the co-employee immunity provisions of the worker’s compensation law as it related to claims against Sullivan Jr.”
Roe v. Albertson's, Inc., 112 P.3d 812 (Idaho 2005).
· cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 72-201 provides: The common law system governing the remedy of workmen against employers for injuries received and occupational diseases contracted in industrial and public work is inconsistent with modern industrial conditions. The welfare of the state depends upon…”
Bint v. Creative Forest Prods., 697 P.2d 818 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 8× “The legislature has a legitimate interest in seeing that coverage for occupational diseases be kept within reasonable limits and in controlling the financial impact on Idaho industry and consumers.”
Poss v. Meeker Mach. Shop, 712 P.2d 621 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 8× “I.C. § 72-201. Even Dr. Luther, whom the Commission relied upon in making its assertion, later on contradicted himself by conceding that the treating physician is better qualified to testify about a patient than a doctor such as Dr.”
Kelly v. TRC Fabrication LLC, 487 P.3d 723 (Idaho 2021).
· cites it 4× “3d at 953 (citing I.C. § 72-201). The Act also limits the liability of direct employers.”
Salinas v. Vierstra, 695 P.2d 369 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 4× “) [13] I.C. § 72-201, Idaho's Worker's Compensation Act, states Idaho's policy toward workers.”
Wernecke v. St. Maries Jt. Sch. Dist. 401, 207 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2009).
· cites it 4× “2d at 1296 ; I.C. § 72-201. The primary objective of an award of permanent disability benefits is to compensate the claimant for his or her loss of earning capacity.”
— Idaho Code § 72-201(1) — 1 case
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.