Court of Appeals Affirms Finding that Injury Arose Out of Employment
In O'Reilly Auto Parts v. Alexander, No. 11-1864 (Iowa App. Oct. 31, 2012), the court addressed two issues. The first was whether claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The second was whether the commissioner had erred in sua sponte entering an insurance carrier into the proceedings. The court affirmed on both counts.
Claimant contended he had suffered a back injury while unloading a tote from a truck and twisting his body to take a step. Injury reports did not reflect the date of injury actually claimed in the action. Claimant was not sent to see the company doctor, and did not initially explain the mechanism of injury to his family doctor. Dr. Ray concluded that claimant had sustained a worsening of pain from the work accident. Claimant subsequently had a stroke and explained at hearing that he had problems with memory. The claim was denied by the deputy but the commissioner reversed and concluded that claimant suffered a work related injury.
The court first noted that it was commissioner's decision that was being reviewed, not that of the deputy, citing Myers v. FCA Servs., Inc., 592 N.W.2d 354, 358 (Iowa 1999). The court next found that defendants had preserved error on the issue of whether the injury arose out of employment. The court noted that the determination of credibility was in the province of the commissioner and found that substantial evidence supported the conclusions of the commissioner.
The final issue presented was that the commissioner conducted an independent investigation by reviewing proof of insurance coverage on the agency's website to find that correct insurer for the employer, and then added that insurer to the claim. The employer indicates that this suggests bias on the part of the commissioner, since neither party had asked the commissioner to do so. The employer did not suggest that it was injured or prejudiced by the actions of the commissioner, only that there was the appearance of impropriety. The court found that the agency simply corrected an error, which counsel failed to identify and remedy. The commissioner's action was within the authority granted the commissioner by the legislature to adjudicate rights and duties as between injured workers and the responsible insurance carriers. The commissioner's decision was affirmed.
Claimant contended he had suffered a back injury while unloading a tote from a truck and twisting his body to take a step. Injury reports did not reflect the date of injury actually claimed in the action. Claimant was not sent to see the company doctor, and did not initially explain the mechanism of injury to his family doctor. Dr. Ray concluded that claimant had sustained a worsening of pain from the work accident. Claimant subsequently had a stroke and explained at hearing that he had problems with memory. The claim was denied by the deputy but the commissioner reversed and concluded that claimant suffered a work related injury.
The court first noted that it was commissioner's decision that was being reviewed, not that of the deputy, citing Myers v. FCA Servs., Inc., 592 N.W.2d 354, 358 (Iowa 1999). The court next found that defendants had preserved error on the issue of whether the injury arose out of employment. The court noted that the determination of credibility was in the province of the commissioner and found that substantial evidence supported the conclusions of the commissioner.
The final issue presented was that the commissioner conducted an independent investigation by reviewing proof of insurance coverage on the agency's website to find that correct insurer for the employer, and then added that insurer to the claim. The employer indicates that this suggests bias on the part of the commissioner, since neither party had asked the commissioner to do so. The employer did not suggest that it was injured or prejudiced by the actions of the commissioner, only that there was the appearance of impropriety. The court found that the agency simply corrected an error, which counsel failed to identify and remedy. The commissioner's action was within the authority granted the commissioner by the legislature to adjudicate rights and duties as between injured workers and the responsible insurance carriers. The commissioner's decision was affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment