BISTLINE, Justice.
Elsie Hagler was hired by Micron Technology Inc., in April of 1983. In the spring of 1984 she was working as a photo operator in Micron’s wafer fabrication department. Because her job put her in contact with various chemicals, she wore vinyl gloves to protect her hands. However, in spite of these precautions, she developed a rash on her wrists. She had Dr. Gerald G. Overly, a dermatologist, examine the rash in June of 1984. Dr. Overly performed a fungus test; the results were negative. He determined that Hagler had “contact dermatitis,” which was caused by an allergic reaction to the gloves she wore at work. He instructed her to wear cotton glove liners; she did so, and her condition improved. Micron’s surety paid for Hagler’s expenses.
Later that summer, Hagler asked Micron to assign her to another work area so that she could avoid all contact with the chemicals that caused her dermatitis. Micron denied her request. In response, Hagler resigned and immediately reapplied to another department at Micron in September of 1984. She got the job.
In February of 1985, Hagler was laid off work. In October of 1985, she went back to Dr. Overly because of further problems with the skin on her hands. Dr. Overly performed the same test for fungus that he had performed during Hagler’s first visit. Unlike the previous test, the results of this test were positive. A later fungus test, performed in July of 1986, was also positive. The fungus was identified as T-rub-rum, or ringworm.
According to Dr. Overly, ringworm is often a chronic and recurring condition. Consistent with these characteristics, the doctor initially thought that the fungus on [598]*598Hagler’s hands could be traced to her previous rash. However, during a February 1988 examination, Dr. Overly also tested Hagler’s feet and discovered the same fungus. This caused Dr. Overly to change his mind about the cause of the fungus on Hagler’s hands. His revised opinion was that the ringworm on Hagler’s feet, which she admits had been there for several years, caused the ringworm on her hands. He also concluded that the fungus on Hagler’s feet was not work related.
Hagler, who had filed a notice of injury on July 26, 1984, made an application for a hearing before the Industrial Commission on January 5, 1987.1 She claimed that she was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for the fungus on her hands. A hearing was held on February 17, 1988. She appeared pro se. She and her daughter, Darlene, were the only witnesses. Darlene attempted to introduce various passages from a medical treatise by reading the passages to the Commission. The Commission struck these readings and then denied Darlene’s motion to admit the treatise into evidence. After the hearing had commenced, Hagler, appearing pro se, took Dr. Overly’s oral deposition. The record of the deposition was entered into evidence.
The Commission delivered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on May 16, 1988. The Commission found that Hagler’s ringworm was not caused by her employment at Micron. Hagler appealed. The issue before this Court is whether the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence.
A workers’ compensation claimant has the burden of proving that the condition for which he or she is seeking compensation is causally related to an industrial accident. Neufeld v. Browning Ferris Indus., 109 Idaho 899, 712 P.2d 600 (1985). The claimant must also present medical testimony that supports the claim to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Bowman v. Twin Falls Constr. Co., 99 Idaho 312, 581 P.2d 770 (1978). When the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent, although conflicting evidence, they will be affirmed on appeal. Idaho Code § 72-732; Matter of Snyder, 109 Idaho 167, 706 P.2d 56 (1985).
In this case, the only medical testimony that was presented to the Industrial Commission was that of Dr. Overly. He unequivocally testified that the ringworm on Hagler’s hands was not caused by anything she encountered in her work at Micron. Specifically, he testified that the ringworm on Hagler’s hands was caused by the ringworm on her feet and was not related to her prior rash. He further testified that he did . not think that the ringworm on Hagler’s feet could have been work related. Since Dr. Overly’s was the only medical testimony presented, Hagler failed to carry her burden of providing medical testimony in support of her claim.
Other evidence presented on Hagler’s behalf, and admitted by the Commission, were Hagler’s testimony and photographs of her hands. These sources did little to establish causation. The following excerpt from Hagler’s appellate brief indicates that she did not understand that she bore the burden of proving causation: “I feel the Commission erred in their decision based on Dr. Overly’s reports. Had they checked further into medical technology, they may have changed their decision.” Hagler apparently wanted the Commission to “check further into the existing medical technology by reading from the medical treatise” that her daughter had attempted to read and which the Commission refused to admit into evidence. While the Commission should have examined the treatise, its failure to do so was harmless error.
Strict adherence to the rules of evidence is not required in Industrial Commission proceedings and admission of evidence in such proceedings is more relaxed. I.C. § 72-708; Kinney v. Tupperware, 117 Idaho 765, 792 P.2d 330 (1990). Given this standard, there was no reason for the Industrial Commission to strike Darlene Ha[599]*599gler’s testimony and readings from the medical treatise, or for the Commission to refuse to admit the treatise into evidence. The treatise was relevant and its admission into evidence would have been consistent with the policy in Industrial Commission proceedings, i.e., simplicity, accommodation of claimants, and justice.
Since the inception of Idaho’s Workers’ Compensation Act, Industrial Commission proceedings have been informal and designed for simplicity; the primary purpose of these proceedings being the attainment of justice in each individual case. See I.C. § 72-708; In re Bones, 48 Idaho 85, 280 P. 223 (1929); Feuling v. Farmer’s Co-op Ditch Co., 54 Idaho 326, 31 P.2d 683 (1934). Thus, Industrial Commission proceedings are conducted “as far as possible in accordance with the rules of equity.”2 I.C. § 72-708. Consistent with these policies, the Commission has historically been imbued with certain powers that specifically enable it to simplify proceedings and enhance the likelihood of equitable and just results. Among these powers are those delineated in I.C. § 72-709(1) and I.C. § 72-714(3) (emphasis added):
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BISTLINE, Justice.
Elsie Hagler was hired by Micron Technology Inc., in April of 1983. In the spring of 1984 she was working as a photo operator in Micron’s wafer fabrication department. Because her job put her in contact with various chemicals, she wore vinyl gloves to protect her hands. However, in spite of these precautions, she developed a rash on her wrists. She had Dr. Gerald G. Overly, a dermatologist, examine the rash in June of 1984. Dr. Overly performed a fungus test; the results were negative. He determined that Hagler had “contact dermatitis,” which was caused by an allergic reaction to the gloves she wore at work. He instructed her to wear cotton glove liners; she did so, and her condition improved. Micron’s surety paid for Hagler’s expenses.
Later that summer, Hagler asked Micron to assign her to another work area so that she could avoid all contact with the chemicals that caused her dermatitis. Micron denied her request. In response, Hagler resigned and immediately reapplied to another department at Micron in September of 1984. She got the job.
In February of 1985, Hagler was laid off work. In October of 1985, she went back to Dr. Overly because of further problems with the skin on her hands. Dr. Overly performed the same test for fungus that he had performed during Hagler’s first visit. Unlike the previous test, the results of this test were positive. A later fungus test, performed in July of 1986, was also positive. The fungus was identified as T-rub-rum, or ringworm.
According to Dr. Overly, ringworm is often a chronic and recurring condition. Consistent with these characteristics, the doctor initially thought that the fungus on [598]*598Hagler’s hands could be traced to her previous rash. However, during a February 1988 examination, Dr. Overly also tested Hagler’s feet and discovered the same fungus. This caused Dr. Overly to change his mind about the cause of the fungus on Hagler’s hands. His revised opinion was that the ringworm on Hagler’s feet, which she admits had been there for several years, caused the ringworm on her hands. He also concluded that the fungus on Hagler’s feet was not work related.
Hagler, who had filed a notice of injury on July 26, 1984, made an application for a hearing before the Industrial Commission on January 5, 1987.1 She claimed that she was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for the fungus on her hands. A hearing was held on February 17, 1988. She appeared pro se. She and her daughter, Darlene, were the only witnesses. Darlene attempted to introduce various passages from a medical treatise by reading the passages to the Commission. The Commission struck these readings and then denied Darlene’s motion to admit the treatise into evidence. After the hearing had commenced, Hagler, appearing pro se, took Dr. Overly’s oral deposition. The record of the deposition was entered into evidence.
The Commission delivered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on May 16, 1988. The Commission found that Hagler’s ringworm was not caused by her employment at Micron. Hagler appealed. The issue before this Court is whether the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence.
A workers’ compensation claimant has the burden of proving that the condition for which he or she is seeking compensation is causally related to an industrial accident. Neufeld v. Browning Ferris Indus., 109 Idaho 899, 712 P.2d 600 (1985). The claimant must also present medical testimony that supports the claim to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Bowman v. Twin Falls Constr. Co., 99 Idaho 312, 581 P.2d 770 (1978). When the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent, although conflicting evidence, they will be affirmed on appeal. Idaho Code § 72-732; Matter of Snyder, 109 Idaho 167, 706 P.2d 56 (1985).
In this case, the only medical testimony that was presented to the Industrial Commission was that of Dr. Overly. He unequivocally testified that the ringworm on Hagler’s hands was not caused by anything she encountered in her work at Micron. Specifically, he testified that the ringworm on Hagler’s hands was caused by the ringworm on her feet and was not related to her prior rash. He further testified that he did . not think that the ringworm on Hagler’s feet could have been work related. Since Dr. Overly’s was the only medical testimony presented, Hagler failed to carry her burden of providing medical testimony in support of her claim.
Other evidence presented on Hagler’s behalf, and admitted by the Commission, were Hagler’s testimony and photographs of her hands. These sources did little to establish causation. The following excerpt from Hagler’s appellate brief indicates that she did not understand that she bore the burden of proving causation: “I feel the Commission erred in their decision based on Dr. Overly’s reports. Had they checked further into medical technology, they may have changed their decision.” Hagler apparently wanted the Commission to “check further into the existing medical technology by reading from the medical treatise” that her daughter had attempted to read and which the Commission refused to admit into evidence. While the Commission should have examined the treatise, its failure to do so was harmless error.
Strict adherence to the rules of evidence is not required in Industrial Commission proceedings and admission of evidence in such proceedings is more relaxed. I.C. § 72-708; Kinney v. Tupperware, 117 Idaho 765, 792 P.2d 330 (1990). Given this standard, there was no reason for the Industrial Commission to strike Darlene Ha[599]*599gler’s testimony and readings from the medical treatise, or for the Commission to refuse to admit the treatise into evidence. The treatise was relevant and its admission into evidence would have been consistent with the policy in Industrial Commission proceedings, i.e., simplicity, accommodation of claimants, and justice.
Since the inception of Idaho’s Workers’ Compensation Act, Industrial Commission proceedings have been informal and designed for simplicity; the primary purpose of these proceedings being the attainment of justice in each individual case. See I.C. § 72-708; In re Bones, 48 Idaho 85, 280 P. 223 (1929); Feuling v. Farmer’s Co-op Ditch Co., 54 Idaho 326, 31 P.2d 683 (1934). Thus, Industrial Commission proceedings are conducted “as far as possible in accordance with the rules of equity.”2 I.C. § 72-708. Consistent with these policies, the Commission has historically been imbued with certain powers that specifically enable it to simplify proceedings and enhance the likelihood of equitable and just results. Among these powers are those delineated in I.C. § 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, and to examine such of the books and records of the parties to a proceeding as relates to the questions in dispute.
72-714(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.
The policies of simplicity and equity are underscored by the pro se nature of the Industrial Commission proceedings, such as this was. From the time of its creation, the Industrial Commission and its proceedings have contemplated pro se claimants. The original notion was that the Industrial Commission would be like most any other Commission. It would lend a ready ear and a helping hand to a citizen with a grievance; the overriding purpose being to do justice in the given situation. This potential for limited assistance to claimants is sensible because pro se claimants cannot be expected to have the legal expertise or wherewithal possessed by attorneys, many of whom specialize in workers’ compensation cases either on behalf of the claimants or on behalf of sureties. For all of these doctrinal and policy reasons, the Industrial Commission erred when it refused to consider the medical treatise offered by Hagler. Although these errors were most unfortunate they were, in this particular case, harmless. Moreover, none of our opinions in recent years have had occasion to remind the Commission of the inherent powers it possesses. In addition to that, we are well aware that the volume of compensation cases has over the years increased to the point where the Commission cannot give any case, including those presented pro se, the attention which was possible thirty or forty years ago.
The Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence. Hagler was unable to meet her burden of [600]*600providing medical testimony in support of her claim. Furthermore, she provided scant evidence that her condition was caused by her work, instead likely hoping that the Commission might find a scintilla upon which to find in her favor. In addition, Hagler’s own medical expert provided substantial testimony that her condition was not work related. We, too, as was undoubtedly so with the Commission, would like to be able to afford some relief, but when a claimant cannot muster the necessary evidence, all hands are tied.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the Commission’s decision. Costs are awarded to Micron. Micron’s request for attorneys’ fees is noted. We have previously ruled on such requests. Garcia v. J.R. Simplot Co., 115 Idaho 966, 772 P.2d 173 (1989).
McDEVITT, J., concurs.
BOYLE, J., concurs in the result.