Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Benefits in Second Injury Fund Case
In Hennigar v. Second Injury Fund, No 09-0343 (Iowa App. Jan. 20, 2011), the court concluded that claimant had failed to establish a first injury, and had also failed to demonstrate a second injury, leading to a denial of Second Injury Fund benefits. The commissioner had earlier denied Fund benefits.
Claimant had an eye condition which she alleged as a first injury. Three doctors had concluded that there was no permanent impairment as a result of the eye injury, and a fourth doctor, who had originally concluded that there was a 1% impairment, recanted this opinion when deposed. Claimant presented the testimony of herself and her daughter, both of whom testified that claimant had watering in her eye, and her vision had deteriorated. Testimony was also presented that claimant had difficulty driving.
The commissioner concluded that claimant's eye condition did not result in a permanent disability and loss of use to either eye. Because there was no loss of use, there was no qualifying first injury. Claimant argued that the AMA Guides did not conclusively determine the issue of permanent impairment. The court did not disagree with this argument, but concluded that the agency had considered not only the Guides, but the expert medical testimony, as well as nonmedical evidence of claimant's complaints. Applying normal substantial evidence rules, the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. Parenthetically, the court stated that even if a first injury had been proved, the commissioner had correctly determined that claimant's contact dermatitis was not a qualifying injury for Fund purposes. In a footnote, the court also noted that words such as "permanent," "disability," "loss" and "loss of use" had been interpreted "fairly and sensibly by the agency and the district court.
Claimant had an eye condition which she alleged as a first injury. Three doctors had concluded that there was no permanent impairment as a result of the eye injury, and a fourth doctor, who had originally concluded that there was a 1% impairment, recanted this opinion when deposed. Claimant presented the testimony of herself and her daughter, both of whom testified that claimant had watering in her eye, and her vision had deteriorated. Testimony was also presented that claimant had difficulty driving.
The commissioner concluded that claimant's eye condition did not result in a permanent disability and loss of use to either eye. Because there was no loss of use, there was no qualifying first injury. Claimant argued that the AMA Guides did not conclusively determine the issue of permanent impairment. The court did not disagree with this argument, but concluded that the agency had considered not only the Guides, but the expert medical testimony, as well as nonmedical evidence of claimant's complaints. Applying normal substantial evidence rules, the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. Parenthetically, the court stated that even if a first injury had been proved, the commissioner had correctly determined that claimant's contact dermatitis was not a qualifying injury for Fund purposes. In a footnote, the court also noted that words such as "permanent," "disability," "loss" and "loss of use" had been interpreted "fairly and sensibly by the agency and the district court.
Comments
Post a Comment