Decision in Kone, Inc. v. Harrison Highlights Importance of Agency's Final Decisoin
In Kone, Inc. v. Harrison, No. 08-891 (Iowa App. Feb. 23, 2011), the Iowa Court of Appeals addressed a situation where the deputy found the claimant not to be credible, and concluded that claimant had failed to establish a permanent impairment. The commissioner reversed the decision on compensability, finding that the medical evidence supported the contention that there was a permanent impairment. Also presented were issued of whether claimant retired because of his injuries or because of a planned retirement, and whether penalty was appropriate. The commissioner concluded, contrary to the hearing deputy, that claimant was entitled to both healing period and penalty benefits. The district court reversed the agency's decision on all three issues.
The court noted the in determining whether substantial evidence supported the agency's decision, it was the agency's decision that was being reviewed, not the decision of the hearing deputy. Although the district court was required to consider the deputy's credibility determination, "even when credibility is involved, the agency, not the hearing officer, is charged with the authoritative responsbility to decide what the evidence means under the governing statute." Citing Iowa State Fairgrounds Sec. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 322 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa 1982). According to the court, the veracity determination of the hearing deputy was one factor to consider in determining whether substantial evidence supported the agency's decision.
The agency rejected the opinion of Dr. Cobb and relied on the opinion of Dr. Manshadi and claimant's testimony. The court found that the agency's determination concerning functional impairment was supported by substantial evidence. With respect to the credibility determination, this primarily affected the issue of whether claimant was entitled to healing period benefits. Claimant argued that his knee and shoulder injuries were considerations in determining whether he would retire. The hearing deputy found that because claimant made the decision to retire on January 15, 2007, before his shoulder injury of March 14, 2007, claimant had removed himself from the workplace and was not entitled to healing period benefits after his official retirement date of April 1, 2007. The agency rejected this, finding that claimant was not locked in to retirement by a date certain, and testified that his knee and shoulder injuries were considerations in determining whether to go through with his retirement. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the commissioner's rejection of the adverse credibility determination. Because claimant later had surgery due to the work injury, healing period benefits were also found appropriate by the Court of Appeals.
The penalty benefit issue involved a delay in payment for claimant's left knee claim. The commissioner provided a 50% penalty for the delay in payment. Defendants did not provide any evidence that justified a delay in payment of these benefits. The court rejected defendants contention that because claimant had not specifically indicated a delay penalty benefits were not appropriate.
The Kone decision reinforces the primacy of the decision of the agency as opposed to the arbitration decision. Although a credibility determination made by the hearing deputy needs to be considered on judicial review, if that determination has been rejected by commissioner on review, and the commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the decision will be affirmed.
The court noted the in determining whether substantial evidence supported the agency's decision, it was the agency's decision that was being reviewed, not the decision of the hearing deputy. Although the district court was required to consider the deputy's credibility determination, "even when credibility is involved, the agency, not the hearing officer, is charged with the authoritative responsbility to decide what the evidence means under the governing statute." Citing Iowa State Fairgrounds Sec. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 322 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa 1982). According to the court, the veracity determination of the hearing deputy was one factor to consider in determining whether substantial evidence supported the agency's decision.
The agency rejected the opinion of Dr. Cobb and relied on the opinion of Dr. Manshadi and claimant's testimony. The court found that the agency's determination concerning functional impairment was supported by substantial evidence. With respect to the credibility determination, this primarily affected the issue of whether claimant was entitled to healing period benefits. Claimant argued that his knee and shoulder injuries were considerations in determining whether he would retire. The hearing deputy found that because claimant made the decision to retire on January 15, 2007, before his shoulder injury of March 14, 2007, claimant had removed himself from the workplace and was not entitled to healing period benefits after his official retirement date of April 1, 2007. The agency rejected this, finding that claimant was not locked in to retirement by a date certain, and testified that his knee and shoulder injuries were considerations in determining whether to go through with his retirement. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the commissioner's rejection of the adverse credibility determination. Because claimant later had surgery due to the work injury, healing period benefits were also found appropriate by the Court of Appeals.
The penalty benefit issue involved a delay in payment for claimant's left knee claim. The commissioner provided a 50% penalty for the delay in payment. Defendants did not provide any evidence that justified a delay in payment of these benefits. The court rejected defendants contention that because claimant had not specifically indicated a delay penalty benefits were not appropriate.
The Kone decision reinforces the primacy of the decision of the agency as opposed to the arbitration decision. Although a credibility determination made by the hearing deputy needs to be considered on judicial review, if that determination has been rejected by commissioner on review, and the commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the decision will be affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment