Court of Appeals Affirms Permanent Total Disability Award Based on Substantial Evidence

In Love's Enterprises, Inc. v. Love and Second Injury Fund of Iowa, No. 10-1131 (Iowa App. April 27, 2011), the court affirmed a finding of permanent total disability, declining the employer's request to the court to reweigh the evidence and reverse the finding of permanent total disability. Claimant was the owner and operator of Love's Enterprises.  Claimant had a traumatic injury to his ankle, and cumulative injuries to his back, neck, knee and  bilateral wrists.  Claimant's treater, Dr. Delbridge, found that the ankle, knee, neck and wrist injuries were related to claimant's work.  He opined that there was a 20% body as a whole injury.  A vocational expert (Roger Marquardt) stated that because claimant lacked the capability of performing even sedentary work, he was eliminated from consistently working and earning money in the competitive labor market.  Following his injuries, claimant performed no more construction work, and eventually turned over the business to his two sons.

At the agency level, the deputy noted that Dr. McMains had concluded that none of claimant's injuries were related to his work.  The deputy rejected this conclusion, and accepted the opinions of Dr. Delbridge and two other doctors.  The deputy fixed the date of injury as the date the claimant engaged in activity that resulted in the left ankle injury, and concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  Penalties were denied.  The district court affirmed, and found that the agency had properly applied the manifestation test of Oscar Mayer Foods v. Tasler.  The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's conclusions, including the conclusion that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.

The court of appeals agreed with the district court on all issues, finding that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence as to the existence of various impairments, the fact that those impairments arose out of and in the course of employment, the applicability of the cumulative injury rule (including the determination of the manifestation date), and the determination of permanent total disability.  The court noted that the fact that "Love focused on his most pressing physical condition before addressing other conditions does not negate the commissioner's manifestation-date determination."

Another issue addressed by the court was whether the district court had abused its discretion in denying the employer's application for stay of agency action, which had been filed at the time of judicial review.  Because the employer had secured a bond on appeal, this issue was found to be moot by the court.

Love is yet another example of the importance of the hearing stage of the workers' compensation proceedings, as the courts are seldom willing to overturn the factual decisions of the agency.