Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals in Substantial Evidence Case
In Broadlawns Medical Center v. Sanders, 792 NW2d 302 (Iowa 2010), Justice Marsha Ternus entered her last workers' compensation decision, reversing the Court of Appeals and concluding that the decision of the commissioner awarding permanent partial disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Claimant worked at a group home for the mentally ill, where she was required to clean a room in which a client had committed suicide. As a result of this experience, she began having nightmares, flashbacks and hallucinations, resulting in a diagnosis of PTSD.
One of the physicians permanently restricted claimant from working at the group home where she had formerly worked. She was assigned to work at a different group home, which she was able to do. She earned less in terms of overtime after the reassignment. Because of the work restrictions, the employer indicated it intended to terminate the employment of the claimant. The doctor who had provided the restrictions reluctantly agreed to this, but did not go so far as to say the restrictions were entirely eliminated. A second psychiatrist agreed that claimant would experience difficulties working at the original group home.
The employer denied payment of permanency payments, and the agency awarded 30% in industrial disability benefits. On judicial review, the district court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals found that the record lacked the necessary expert testimony that claimant's injury was permanent and thus reversed the award of PPD benefits.
The Supreme Court noted that permanency could not be determined until the claimant's disability had stabilized (when "significant improvement from the injury was not expected."). Any disability that remained after the stabilization of the condition will support an award of permanency benefits, according to the court.
The commissioner had noted that the treating psychiatrist believed the condition was permanent in a number of statements, noting that his response to defendants' counsel "reflects more his hope the condition will improve than it does an opinion it is temporary only." The court noted that it was the responsibility of the commissioner to weigh the evidence, and indicated that substantial evidence support the conclusion that there had been a permanent impairment. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the 30% industrial disability award.
The Sanders case demonstrates the difficulty inherent in many cases involving mental injuries. Psychiatrists and psychologists are often hopeful that a claimant's condition will improve over time, and are reluctant to state that a condition has reached maximum medical improvement, much less provide a rating of impairment. In such cases, the permanent restrictions issued by a psychiatrist or psychologist is of great importance, and the Supreme Court has indicated that the hope that a claimant will improve is not sufficient to overcome a finding of MMI where permanent restrictions have been imposed.
One of the physicians permanently restricted claimant from working at the group home where she had formerly worked. She was assigned to work at a different group home, which she was able to do. She earned less in terms of overtime after the reassignment. Because of the work restrictions, the employer indicated it intended to terminate the employment of the claimant. The doctor who had provided the restrictions reluctantly agreed to this, but did not go so far as to say the restrictions were entirely eliminated. A second psychiatrist agreed that claimant would experience difficulties working at the original group home.
The employer denied payment of permanency payments, and the agency awarded 30% in industrial disability benefits. On judicial review, the district court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals found that the record lacked the necessary expert testimony that claimant's injury was permanent and thus reversed the award of PPD benefits.
The Supreme Court noted that permanency could not be determined until the claimant's disability had stabilized (when "significant improvement from the injury was not expected."). Any disability that remained after the stabilization of the condition will support an award of permanency benefits, according to the court.
The commissioner had noted that the treating psychiatrist believed the condition was permanent in a number of statements, noting that his response to defendants' counsel "reflects more his hope the condition will improve than it does an opinion it is temporary only." The court noted that it was the responsibility of the commissioner to weigh the evidence, and indicated that substantial evidence support the conclusion that there had been a permanent impairment. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the 30% industrial disability award.
The Sanders case demonstrates the difficulty inherent in many cases involving mental injuries. Psychiatrists and psychologists are often hopeful that a claimant's condition will improve over time, and are reluctant to state that a condition has reached maximum medical improvement, much less provide a rating of impairment. In such cases, the permanent restrictions issued by a psychiatrist or psychologist is of great importance, and the Supreme Court has indicated that the hope that a claimant will improve is not sufficient to overcome a finding of MMI where permanent restrictions have been imposed.
Comments
Post a Comment