Court of Appeals Affirms Commissioner's Decision on Costs

In John Deere Dubuque Works v. Caven, No. 1-286 (Iowa App. 2011), the Court of Appeals interpreted the commissioner's rule on costs, 876 IAC 4.33(6), for the first time.  In the underlying decision in Caven, the commissioner concluded that the rule, which allows the hearing deputy, in his or her discretion, to award the "reasonable costs of obtaining no more the two doctors' or practitioners' reports," was not limited to payment of $150.00 for a doctors' or practiioners' report.  Prior to the Caven decision, the commissioner's office had interpreted 4.33(6) as being limited to $150.00, similar to 876 IAC 4.33(5), despite the fact that the language of the rule contained no such limitation.

The argument made before the court on appeal was that the commissioner exceeded his authority in allowing payment for the entire cost of obtaining two reports.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that section 86.40 of the Code indicates that all costs before the commissioner are to be "taxed in the discretion of the commissioner."  This language, according to the court, indicated that the issue of costs was a matter delegated specifically to the commissioner, and could only be overturned if the interpretation was "irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable."  The court also noted that appropriate deference was given to the commissioner's promulgation of rules.

The court noted that under Boehme v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 142, 146 (Iowa 2009), the commissioner was constrained to follow the plain meaning of its rules.  The court concluded that rule 4.33(6) was plain and unambiguous, and allowed payment for the complete costs of the doctors' or practitioners' reports.  The court also affirmed, on substantial evidence grounds, a finding that claimant's tinnitus claim had been filed outside of the statute of limitations.

Caven could have a significant impact in favor of claimants, and tends to level the playing field in terms of obtaining doctors' reports when trying a claim.  The Caven case was handled by Marty Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga. 

NOTE:  The employer asked the Supreme Court to take further review of the case following the decision of the Court of Appeals.  This request was denied on August 25, 2011.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions