Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-307 (2026)

Knowledge of employer to affect surety. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Knowledge of employer to affect surety. 

Every such policy, contract or bond shall contain a provision that, as between the employee and the surety, the notice to or knowledge of the occurrence of accident causing an injury or manifestation of an occupational disease on the part of the employer shall be deemed notice or knowledge, as the case may be, on the part of the surety, that the jurisdiction of the employer shall, for the purpose of this law, be the jurisdiction of the surety, and that the surety shall in all things be bound by and subject to the orders, findings, decisions, or awards of the commission rendered against the employer for the payment of compensation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1949–2017 · leading case: Clevenger v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 377 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clevenger v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 377 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1963). · cites it 80× “" Appellant's assignments of error I and III are essentially identical, wherein it is contended that the Board erred in ruling that medical attention provided for by I.C. § 72-307, or reimbursement in the event of failure to supply medical attention, are barred by I.”
Steinebach v. Hoff Lumber Co., 566 P.2d 377 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 17× “Therefore based on I.C. § 72-307 (now in amended form I.C. § 72^432) both claimants were awarded compensation for medical and surgical expenses.”
Irvine v. Perry, 299 P.2d 97 (Idaho 1956). · cites it 28× “" Idaho Code, § 72-307 provides in part: "The employer shall provide for an injured employee such reasonable medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches and apparatus, as may be required or be requested by the employee…”
Scott v. Aslett Constr. Co., 452 P.2d 61 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 27× “Under these circumstances, the appellant had the right, under I.C. § 72-307, [3] to obtain such services independently at the cost of respondent employer or its surety.”
Rohnert v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 519 P.2d 432 (Idaho 1974). · cites it 23× “§ 72-324] had modified Section 72-307 [I.C. § 72-307] with respect to the furnishing of artificial limbs, and the Commission further concludes that this section limits the employer’s liability under Section 72-307 [I.”
Wilson v. Gardner Associated, Inc., 426 P.2d 567 (Idaho 1967). · cites it 11× “Therein it was held that under the provisions of I.C. § 72-307, an employer is obligated to furnish an injured workman with reasonable medical, surgical or other treatment necessary so far as possible, to restore his health, usefulness and earning capacity.”
Burch v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 353 P.2d 1076 (Idaho 1960). · cites it 8× “In considering this assignment *326 it is necessary to examine the applicable provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of this State, one of which is I.C. § 72-307, the pertinent portion of which provides: “The employer shall provide for an injured employee such reasonable…”
Lane v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., 376 P.2d 198 (Idaho 1962). · cites it 7× “00 was held to be a part of the litigation and therefore not chargeable to defendants as part of treatment under I.C. § 72-307. The board further found that Lane’s condition had improved over what it had been in November, 1956, and determined claimant’s residual partial…”
Findley v. Flanigan, 373 P.2d 551 (Idaho 1962). · cites it 4× “The record affirmatively shows, by reason of lack of timely notice and knowledge of the accident on the part of respondent Company or any partner, that neither the Company nor its surety was afforded opportunity to investigate the alleged accident and injury, nor to afford…”
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Musgrave, 370 P.2d 778 (Idaho 1962). · cites it 4× “, (I.C. § 72-307). The terms employed in I. C.”
Brooks v. Duncan, 532 P.2d 921 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 4× “The Commission further rejected the medical claim upon the ground that Brooks failed to notify Duncan of the necessity for further surgery, thereby denying Duncan an opportunity to provide the necessary treatment.”
Blackburn v. Olson, 207 P.2d 1160 (Idaho 1949). · cites it 4× “Cathcart, ascertained before the compensation agreement was executed that the hospital contract was not in operation.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.