Court of Appeals Addresses Review-Reopening Petition and Employer's Subrogation Rights
In Sanchez v. Celadon Trucking Services, No. 12-0895 (Iowa App. Feb. 13, 2013), the Court of Appeals addressed a review-reopening question which was combined with questions concerning the proceeds of a third party action, and the employer's subrogation rights from that proceeding. Claimant had originally been awarded a 25% industrial disability, and later filed for review reopening, and also sought an adjudication of the extent of the employer's remaining lien from the third-party settlement.
The deputy found that claimant was not entitled to additional benefits, finding that claimant lacked credibility. The deputy also found that the employer's calculation of the lien was correct and ordered that the lien be honored by claimant. The commissioner summarily affirmed the decision on both points. The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.
The court notes that on the review-reopening questions, its task was limited to determining whether substantial evidence supported the decision. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the claim that there had been no change in condition sufficient to justify a change in the industrial disability paid to claimant. On the lien question, the court noted that section 85.22(1) provides that the employer has a lien on the recovery and judgment from the third party action. The court indicated that this lien is to be reduced by reasonable litigation costs and attorneys fees in obtaining the third party recovery, citing Sourbier v. State, 498 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 1993). The court noted that as future benefits to claimant become payable, the employer is responsible for reimbursing claimant an amount equal to the litigation costs claimant incurred in the third party settlement, which are applicable to that payment. The court concluded that the agency had correctly calculated the employer's lien, and affirmed that decision.
The deputy found that claimant was not entitled to additional benefits, finding that claimant lacked credibility. The deputy also found that the employer's calculation of the lien was correct and ordered that the lien be honored by claimant. The commissioner summarily affirmed the decision on both points. The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.
The court notes that on the review-reopening questions, its task was limited to determining whether substantial evidence supported the decision. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the claim that there had been no change in condition sufficient to justify a change in the industrial disability paid to claimant. On the lien question, the court noted that section 85.22(1) provides that the employer has a lien on the recovery and judgment from the third party action. The court indicated that this lien is to be reduced by reasonable litigation costs and attorneys fees in obtaining the third party recovery, citing Sourbier v. State, 498 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 1993). The court noted that as future benefits to claimant become payable, the employer is responsible for reimbursing claimant an amount equal to the litigation costs claimant incurred in the third party settlement, which are applicable to that payment. The court concluded that the agency had correctly calculated the employer's lien, and affirmed that decision.
Comments
Post a Comment