Court of Appeals Addresses Penalty Issues, Sanctions
In Dunlap v. Action Warehouse, No. 11-1451 (Iowa App. Oct. 17, 2012), the court addressed issues of causal connection, permanency, temporary benefits, penalty and sanctions. The issues concerning causal connection, extent of permanency and temporary benefits were fairly straightforward analyses based on substantial evidence principles. The penalty and sanction issues are potentially more important.
Dunlap was injured at work, and after a numerous struggles to obtain care, including an alternate medical care proceeding, he was set up with Dr. Prevo. Dr. Prevo found that there was no permanency and further indicated the back problems were not related to his work. Dr. Prevo was subpoenaed to a deposition and also provided with a subpoena duces tecum. At the deposition, he refused to provide certain documents that had been subpoenaed. Prevo refused to answer questions concerning disciplinary proceedings before the Iowa Board of Medicine.
At hearing, Dunlap sought sanctions against the employer for the refusal of Dr. Prevo to answer questions. The deputy found in favor of claimant and ordered the employer to pay the cost of Dr. Prevo's deposition, including the fees incurred for Dr. Prevo's and the court reporter's time. Running healing period benefits were awarded, but penalty benefits were denied, based on opinions from Dr. Boyett and Dr. Neff. The commissioner affirmed.
The district court affirmed in all respects save the penalty issue. On that issue, the court found that the employer was liable for penalty from the date of injury until September 26, 2008, the date Dr. Neff responded to the employer's letter agreeing that there was no causal connection.
On the issue of running healing period, the court affirmed the decision of agency on substantial evidence grounds. The court noted that the deputy detailed why he gave greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Thompson than to Drs. Neff, Boyett and Prevo.
On the penalty issues, the employer argued that Dr. Boyett's full duty release provided a reasonable basis for its position that no benefits were owing. The employer also argued that Dr. Neff's opinion that the back pain was not related to his work injury defeated claimant's penalty claim. Without a great deal of discussion, or an indication of the time period involved, the court reversed the determination of the district court and affirmed the commissioner's denial of penalty benefits.
On the issue of sanctions, claimant requested that Dr. Prevo be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the subpoena. The agency found that it lacked contempt power. The district court affirmed this holding, finding that "the law in Iowa is well-settled that an administrative agency is without power to enforce subpoenas or to hold someone in contempt of court." The court of appeals affirmed this analysis. Claimant also argued that the agency had the power to deem Dr. Prevo in contempt, even if it did not have the power to impose civil punishment. The court rejected this assertion, indicating that section 665.2(4) of the Code limited the contempt power to courts. The court also noted that administrative agencies possessed only such power as accorded by statute.
Dunlap was injured at work, and after a numerous struggles to obtain care, including an alternate medical care proceeding, he was set up with Dr. Prevo. Dr. Prevo found that there was no permanency and further indicated the back problems were not related to his work. Dr. Prevo was subpoenaed to a deposition and also provided with a subpoena duces tecum. At the deposition, he refused to provide certain documents that had been subpoenaed. Prevo refused to answer questions concerning disciplinary proceedings before the Iowa Board of Medicine.
At hearing, Dunlap sought sanctions against the employer for the refusal of Dr. Prevo to answer questions. The deputy found in favor of claimant and ordered the employer to pay the cost of Dr. Prevo's deposition, including the fees incurred for Dr. Prevo's and the court reporter's time. Running healing period benefits were awarded, but penalty benefits were denied, based on opinions from Dr. Boyett and Dr. Neff. The commissioner affirmed.
The district court affirmed in all respects save the penalty issue. On that issue, the court found that the employer was liable for penalty from the date of injury until September 26, 2008, the date Dr. Neff responded to the employer's letter agreeing that there was no causal connection.
On the issue of running healing period, the court affirmed the decision of agency on substantial evidence grounds. The court noted that the deputy detailed why he gave greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Thompson than to Drs. Neff, Boyett and Prevo.
On the penalty issues, the employer argued that Dr. Boyett's full duty release provided a reasonable basis for its position that no benefits were owing. The employer also argued that Dr. Neff's opinion that the back pain was not related to his work injury defeated claimant's penalty claim. Without a great deal of discussion, or an indication of the time period involved, the court reversed the determination of the district court and affirmed the commissioner's denial of penalty benefits.
On the issue of sanctions, claimant requested that Dr. Prevo be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the subpoena. The agency found that it lacked contempt power. The district court affirmed this holding, finding that "the law in Iowa is well-settled that an administrative agency is without power to enforce subpoenas or to hold someone in contempt of court." The court of appeals affirmed this analysis. Claimant also argued that the agency had the power to deem Dr. Prevo in contempt, even if it did not have the power to impose civil punishment. The court rejected this assertion, indicating that section 665.2(4) of the Code limited the contempt power to courts. The court also noted that administrative agencies possessed only such power as accorded by statute.
Comments
Post a Comment