Justices Weigh Medical Benefits Appeal in Idaho Workplace Injury Case

(POCATELLO, Idaho) — The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments on Oct. 9 in Pocatello in the case of Shasta Proulx, a former Saveway Market employee who stopped receiving workers’ compensation benefits after injuring herself carrying a box of potatoes.

The case centers on whether Proulx is entitled to continued medical benefits for ongoing pain despite a medical evaluation that found she had recovered.​​ The justices’ ruling could clarify how long-term or recurring symptoms are treated under Idaho’s workers’ compensation laws and when insurance companies can determine when to end coverage.

According to a case summary prepared by the Idaho Supreme Court, Proulx, a 35-year-old woman, is appealing an order from the Idaho Industrial Commission. Her injury occurred in 2020 at Saveway Market in Driggs when she was carrying a 55-pound bag of potatoes. The box broke and caused her to strain her arm. Proulx received treatment for a little over six months, according to court documents filed with the Supreme Court. Proulx’s symptoms did not fully resolve and the insurance company, Amtrust Insurance Company of Kansas, Inc., requested an independent medical examination. Amtrust notified Proulx that she would receive partial disability benefits but would no longer receive temporary disability or medical benefits.

According to court documents, Proulx fought her case and filed a complaint with the Idaho Industrial Commission. She continued by asking for additional medical opinions on her persistent pain. Two of the three physicians she saw agreed that she suffered a strain that did not need any additional medical care and she was advised against any additional surgical intervention.  According to Proulx’s attorney, the commission’s findings are not accurate because of the pain in her neck and the one physician examination that stated surgical intervention is reasonable.

The case was heard in Pocatello by the Idaho Supreme Court as part of a travel program mandated by the state to educate the public and help them understand the state’s judicial system. The justices present in court were Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan, Justice Colleen Zahn, Justice Robyn Brody, Justice Gregory W. Moeller, and Justice Cynthia Meyer. The justices heard two additional cases; an easement dispute case, Stasiewicz v. Henry’s Lake Village and a medical billing case challenging the Idaho Patient Act, Ridgeline Medical v. Lyon. Those  attending included legal studies students, journalists, and high school students.

Attorneys for Proulx argued that the Idaho Industrial Commission had incorrectly stated that  “Proulx had not suffered a neck injury from the incident.” Proulx’s attorney Trenton Arnold said, “The plaintiff on the first day at the hospital complained that she had pain in [her] neck the entire time. Dr. Stromberg’s statement was the tipping point for me, the independent medical examination report did not state there was an injury in the neck because she did not complain about her neck when she was admitted. Frankly speaking, it was delayed by three weeks. We showed him in the record that she complained about neck pain.” Arnold continued, “The commission made an error in denying her continued care, and they failed to fully understand the results of her medical assessments and emphasized that chronic pain is often under recognized in standard evaluations.”

Saveway’s attorney, Rachael O’Bar, argued that the original decision by the State Industrial Commission was based on medical reports by two alternative physicians that both agreed that Proulx had reached maximum improvements, and she was no longer eligible for medical benefits under Idaho’s statutory guidelines.

Following the session, the justices stayed for a brief Q&A with the students, answering general questions about the judicial system, the courts’ role, and the process of interpreting law. While they did not comment on the pending cases, several justices emphasized the importance of clarity in legal standards and the value of public understanding. “We want people to better understand our judicial system and for people to understand how courts operate,” Bevan stated. “That’s why we bring these hearings to communities across Idaho.”

Upon the completion of the Q&A session the Chief Justice explained that the court does not rule on the day of the hearings and will issue a written opinion in 60 to 90 days.

As students filed out of the auditorium, they reviewed the cases. Some high school students were having discussions and taking a stance to practice for the reenactment of the case in their debate class.

“I can’t wait to hear the final verdict in a few months,” said student Cooper Colonel. “Saveway’s attorney made some strong points. I’m excited to debate this case in my class,”