Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-714 (2026)
Hearings, where and how conducted.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Hearings, where and how conducted.
(1) The hearing may be held in the city or town or within the county where the injury or disease occurred, or in such other place as the commission deems most convenient for the parties and most appropriate for ascertaining their rights.
(2) If the place of hearing claimant’s testimony is outside the county and the claimant’s presence is deemed necessary, the commission shall cause or require to be paid to the claimant a reasonable sum to reimburse him for his travel expense, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
(3) The commission, or member thereof, or a hearing officer, referee or examiner, to whom the matter has been assigned, shall make such inquiries and investigations as may be deemed necessary.
(4) The authority of the commission, or of a member, hearing officer, referee or examiner, shall include the right to enter premises at any reasonable time where an injury, disease or death has occurred and to make such examination of any tool, appliance, process, machinery or environmental or other condition as may be relevant to a determination of the cause and circumstances of the injury, disease, or death.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Swanson v. Kraft, Inc., 775 P.2d 629 (Idaho 1989).
Swanson v. Kraft, Inc., 775 P.2d 629 (Idaho 1989). “Such a procedure would be in keeping with the legislative directive of Idaho Code Annotated § 43-1404 (superseded): "The board, or member of the board to whom the matter has been assigned, shall make such inquiries and investigations as shall be deemed necessary.”
Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 302 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2013). “Idaho Code § 72-714 governs hearings in the Industrial Commission.”
Roy Green v. Indus. Special Indem., 371 P.3d 329 (Idaho 2016). “ISIF contends that retained jurisdiction is not available to relieve a surety from its failure to present evidence on an issue noticed for a hearing; rather, ISIF argues, retained jurisdiction is only available for the benefit of claimants. We disagree.”
Hagler v. Micron Tech., Inc., 798 P.2d 55 (Idaho 1990). “§ 72-709(1) and I.C. § 72-714(3) (emphasis added): 72-709(1) The commission or any member thereof or any hearing officer, examiner or referee appointed by the commission shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, issue subpoenas duces tecum,…”
Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 179 P.3d 265 (Idaho 2008). “” Page argues that apportionment is an affirmative defense on which McCain bears the burden of proof and that when conducting hearings the Commission is required to make such inquiries and investigations as may be deemed necessary, I.C. § 72-714(3). 2 The Commission denied the…”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Quick Transp., Inc., 999 P.2d 895 (Idaho 2000). “See I.C. § 72-714(3). When the Commission makes such an investigation, it is acting in its role as a judicial tribunal, not an executive agency.”
Hartman v. Double L Mfg., 111 P.3d 141 (Idaho 2005). “§ 72-714(3) provides: “The commission, or member thereof, or a hearing officer, referee or examiner, to whom the matter has been assigned, shall make such inquires and investigations as may be deemed necessary.” As stated in Hagler , “none of our opinions in recent years have…”
Lowery v. Kuykendall (Idaho 2024). “Pursuant to Idaho Code section 72-714(3), the Commission determined that the interests of justice were best served by reopening the hearing of this matter to allow additional testimony.”
Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse (Idaho 2013). “Idaho Code § 72-714 governs hearings in the Industrial Commission.”
Swander v. Boise Cascade Corp., 778 P.2d 774 (Idaho 1989). “” I noted there, and repeat here, that, insofar as reported worker’s compensation cases are concerned, I.C. § 72-714(3), formerly I.C.A. § 43-1404, does not appear to have been utilized in Commission proceedings in the past fifty-two years — which is a long, long time for a…”
— Idaho Code § 72-714(3) — 10 cases
Roy Green v. Indus. Special Indem., 371 P.3d 329 (Idaho 2016). “ISIF contends that retained jurisdiction is not available to relieve a surety from its failure to present evidence on an issue noticed for a hearing; rather, ISIF argues, retained jurisdiction is only available for the benefit of claimants. We disagree.”
Swanson v. Kraft, Inc., 775 P.2d 629 (Idaho 1989). “Such a procedure would be in keeping with the legislative directive of Idaho Code Annotated § 43-1404 (superseded): "The board, or member of the board to whom the matter has been assigned, shall make such inquiries and investigations as shall be deemed necessary.”
Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 302 P.3d 718 (Idaho 2013). “Idaho Code § 72-714 governs hearings in the Industrial Commission.”
Hagler v. Micron Tech., Inc., 798 P.2d 55 (Idaho 1990). “§ 72-709(1) and I.C. § 72-714(3) (emphasis added): 72-709(1) The commission or any member thereof or any hearing officer, examiner or referee appointed by the commission shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, issue subpoenas duces tecum,…”
Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 179 P.3d 265 (Idaho 2008). “” Page argues that apportionment is an affirmative defense on which McCain bears the burden of proof and that when conducting hearings the Commission is required to make such inquiries and investigations as may be deemed necessary, I.C. § 72-714(3). 2 The Commission denied the…”
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.