Yet Another Substantial Evidence Affirmance by the Court of Appeals
The case of Big Tomato Pizza v Cloud, No. 12-1291 (Iowa App. Feb. 27, 2013), involves substantial evidence, and as is common, an affirmance of the decision of the commissioner. Mr. Cloud was a pizza delivery driver for Big Tomato, and when he was getting out of his car, a customer who was being chased out of the restaurant struck him, there was a scuffle and claimant suffered injuries, including a collapsed lung.
The claim was denied, and claimant had no treatment following the hospitalization. He began having nightmares about the incident.
At hearing, defendants presented testimony that indicated that Mr. Cloud was actively pursuing the customer far from the premises of Big Tomato. The deputy rejected this testimony, finding that claimant as the victim of an assault. The commissioner affirmed and found that the injury arose out of an in the course of employment. The commissioner concluded that section 85.16(1), which denies compensation for an employee's willful intent to injure himself or another, did not compel denial of compensation. The commissioner found that industrial disability was 10% and indicated that defendants would have to pay for a mental health evaluation.
The district court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds. The court of appeals discusses the "in the course of" element in some detail, in response to the employer's argument that claimant deviated from the course of his employment by voluntarily engaging in an altercation some distance from the restaurant. The court finds that the commissioner's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.
On the 85.16 issue, the court noted that the commissioner had found there was no credible evidence that claimant wished to willfully injure the customer, and concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's conclusions. The court also affirms on substantial evidence grounds, that there was a 10% industrial disability and that claimant was entitled to be evaluated for a mental health injury.
The claim was denied, and claimant had no treatment following the hospitalization. He began having nightmares about the incident.
At hearing, defendants presented testimony that indicated that Mr. Cloud was actively pursuing the customer far from the premises of Big Tomato. The deputy rejected this testimony, finding that claimant as the victim of an assault. The commissioner affirmed and found that the injury arose out of an in the course of employment. The commissioner concluded that section 85.16(1), which denies compensation for an employee's willful intent to injure himself or another, did not compel denial of compensation. The commissioner found that industrial disability was 10% and indicated that defendants would have to pay for a mental health evaluation.
The district court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds. The court of appeals discusses the "in the course of" element in some detail, in response to the employer's argument that claimant deviated from the course of his employment by voluntarily engaging in an altercation some distance from the restaurant. The court finds that the commissioner's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.
On the 85.16 issue, the court noted that the commissioner had found there was no credible evidence that claimant wished to willfully injure the customer, and concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's conclusions. The court also affirms on substantial evidence grounds, that there was a 10% industrial disability and that claimant was entitled to be evaluated for a mental health injury.
Comments
Post a Comment