Court of Appeals Affirms Review-Reopening Denial on Substantial Evidence Grounds

Hernandez v. Osceola Foods, No. 12-1658 (Iowa App. April 24, 2013) involved a review-reopening claim following an earlier settlement.  At the time of the settlement, claimant had 30 pound restrictions and was working for Osceola Foods.  She remained there for two years after the settlement, but was fired for falsely filling out an employment application for her husband.  She sought other work, and began to work for another company, Farley's and Sanders Candy.  In her application for Farley's, which was through a temporary agency, she did not reveal that she had restrictions, and indicated she was able to perform all duties, which included lifting up to 50 pounds.  A few months later, when the new employer found out about the restrictions, Ms. Hernandez was fired.

Claimant sought review-reopening and was denied at the agency level, with the agency finding that claimant's loss of earnings was due to her dishonest conduct rather than to her work injury.  The court of appeals affirmed, finding that on substantial evidence grounds there was no showing of any type of change in either physical condition or economic condition.  The court finds that although claimant attempted to frame her argument as a legal issue (as she must if she were going to prevail), this was actually a substantial evidence question, and there was ample evidence to support the findings of the agency, and the denial of additional benefits.  The court found that claimant's actions in falsifying her husband's application for work and in not being honest in her application with the temporary agency, plus the fact that her physical condition had not changed, was sufficient to deny additional benefits.

Although not before the court, query whether the application for the temporary agency, which asks questions such as whether the applicant is able to perform all duties of the job and "what weaknesses do you bring to the employer?" runs afoul of the ADA.