Court of Appeals Affirms Permanent Total Disability Award, But Caps Deposition Fee at $150.00
Whirlpool Corp. v. Davis, No. 12-1962 (Iowa App. July 24, 2013) involved a finding by the commissioner that claimant was permanently and totally disabled. The court affirmed this aspect of the case on substantial evidence grounds, and also concluded that reimbursement for a deposition was statutorily limited to $150.00.
Claimant suffered a back injury, resulting in a 7% impairment rating from defendants' doctor, Dr. Mark Taylor. An IME from Dr. John Kuhnlein indicated that he could not say, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the current back problems were related to the original work injury, although the back problems were related to one of the incidents that had occurred at Whirlpool. He provided a 5% impairment rating. Claimant ultimately left his job and was found eligible for social security disability benefits.
The deputy found that claimant was credible, and credited the findings of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Buresh. He rejected the findings of Dr. Momady, because he had apparently changed his mind about causation when he found claimant had previously treated with a chiropractor, even though he had not seen the chiropractor's notes. Permanent total disability was awarded, and affirmed on appeal.
On judicial review, the district court denied a stay to Whirlpool. The district court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings, although the court found that two of eight visits with Dr. Buresh were not related to his back problems. Whirlpool appealed, arguing that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled, and that the commissioner erred in awarding costs and in denying it request for stay.
The court discussed the permanent total disability finding only briefly, to note that the findings of the commissioner were supported by substantial evidence, as discussed in the district court decision. On the medical expense issue, the court concluded that because Dr. Momady had indicated that future treatment would not be covered by workers' compensation, claimant was entitled to seek treatment elsewhere under Bell Bros. v. Gwinn. Because Dr. Buresh's treatment was for claimant's back problems, this was compensable.
On the issue of costs, the court noted the 876 IAC 4.33 and section 622.72 of the Iowa Code limited deposition costs to $150.00, and found that the taxation of costs in excess of $150.00 was error. Claimant was awarded the $250.00 for a letter from a consulting doctor, and the court found no abuse of discretion. The court also found not abuse of discretion in the rejection of the stay request.
Claimant suffered a back injury, resulting in a 7% impairment rating from defendants' doctor, Dr. Mark Taylor. An IME from Dr. John Kuhnlein indicated that he could not say, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the current back problems were related to the original work injury, although the back problems were related to one of the incidents that had occurred at Whirlpool. He provided a 5% impairment rating. Claimant ultimately left his job and was found eligible for social security disability benefits.
The deputy found that claimant was credible, and credited the findings of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Buresh. He rejected the findings of Dr. Momady, because he had apparently changed his mind about causation when he found claimant had previously treated with a chiropractor, even though he had not seen the chiropractor's notes. Permanent total disability was awarded, and affirmed on appeal.
On judicial review, the district court denied a stay to Whirlpool. The district court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings, although the court found that two of eight visits with Dr. Buresh were not related to his back problems. Whirlpool appealed, arguing that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled, and that the commissioner erred in awarding costs and in denying it request for stay.
The court discussed the permanent total disability finding only briefly, to note that the findings of the commissioner were supported by substantial evidence, as discussed in the district court decision. On the medical expense issue, the court concluded that because Dr. Momady had indicated that future treatment would not be covered by workers' compensation, claimant was entitled to seek treatment elsewhere under Bell Bros. v. Gwinn. Because Dr. Buresh's treatment was for claimant's back problems, this was compensable.
On the issue of costs, the court noted the 876 IAC 4.33 and section 622.72 of the Iowa Code limited deposition costs to $150.00, and found that the taxation of costs in excess of $150.00 was error. Claimant was awarded the $250.00 for a letter from a consulting doctor, and the court found no abuse of discretion. The court also found not abuse of discretion in the rejection of the stay request.
Comments
Post a Comment