Court of Appeals Decision in Westling v. Hormel Foods
The Westling case, decided on February 9, 2009, addressed the issue of whether claimant's work injury resulted in a permanent partial disability. Claimant suffered an injury to his right shoulder while working for the employer, and had a debridement and acromionectomy. He was returned to work without restrictions, worked for a few months, and retired from Hormel, where he had worked for thirty years.
The deputy found that claimant had failed to establish a causal connection between his shoulder injury and permanent disability. This decision was upheld by the commissioner, and Westling filed a rehearing request, asking the commissioner to decide whether the definition of permanent impairment in the AMA Guides was synonymous with the judicial definition of functional disability. The commissioner denied the request for rehearing, finding that the agency had relied on undisputed medical evidence that the claimant's work was not a cause of a permanent shoulder condition. The district court affirmed, finding that there was no medical evidence supporting the existence of an impairment.
Before the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the term "impairment" in the Guides was synonymous with the statutory term "disability" when it is used in the sense of functional disability. Because claimant's surgery removed a portion of his anatomy, he argued there was a derangement, and thus an impairment and a permanent partial disability as a matter of law. The court rejected this argument because under 876 IAC 2.4, the Guides are only a guide, and are not dispositive.
Claimant also argued that substantial evidence did not support the findings of the commissioner. The Court of Appeals noted that claimant's IME doctor had concluded that claimant's injury to his shoulder was most likely arthritic in nature. Westling's treating physician also indicated that there was no permanent impairment attributable to the work injury. In light of this evidence, and the lack of any contrary evidence, the court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency.
The deputy found that claimant had failed to establish a causal connection between his shoulder injury and permanent disability. This decision was upheld by the commissioner, and Westling filed a rehearing request, asking the commissioner to decide whether the definition of permanent impairment in the AMA Guides was synonymous with the judicial definition of functional disability. The commissioner denied the request for rehearing, finding that the agency had relied on undisputed medical evidence that the claimant's work was not a cause of a permanent shoulder condition. The district court affirmed, finding that there was no medical evidence supporting the existence of an impairment.
Before the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the term "impairment" in the Guides was synonymous with the statutory term "disability" when it is used in the sense of functional disability. Because claimant's surgery removed a portion of his anatomy, he argued there was a derangement, and thus an impairment and a permanent partial disability as a matter of law. The court rejected this argument because under 876 IAC 2.4, the Guides are only a guide, and are not dispositive.
Claimant also argued that substantial evidence did not support the findings of the commissioner. The Court of Appeals noted that claimant's IME doctor had concluded that claimant's injury to his shoulder was most likely arthritic in nature. Westling's treating physician also indicated that there was no permanent impairment attributable to the work injury. In light of this evidence, and the lack of any contrary evidence, the court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency.
Comments
Post a Comment