Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of PTD Benefits, Award of HP benefits on Substantial Evidence Grounds

Claimant was exposed to chemicals while working with his employer, Jeld-Win, Inc.  He developed a sensitivity to those chemicals, missed work because of this, and ultimately had to leave his employment with the company because of his injury.  The agency concluded that claimant had suffered a 25% industrial loss rather than the permanent total disability urged by claimant.  The agency also concluded that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits.  In Deckert v. Jeld-Wen, No. 13-0288 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner.

The court found that the agency had provided a detailed explanation for the determination that claimant had suffered only a 25% industrial loss.  The agency had noted that the only restriction on claimant was not being exposed to isocyanate or diisocyanates in the environment.  Claimant had rejected an offer by the company to move to one of their other plants where he would not be exposed.  According to the court, the agency had discussed the conflicting vocational evidence.  Because the findings were supported by substantial evidence, the court affirmed the award of 25% industrial disability.

On healing period, the court affirmed the award of healing period benefits, which had found that claimant was entitled to healing period until he had reached maximum medical improvement.  The court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.  The court noted that even if this was seen as a challenge to the interpretation of the statute by the agency, there was no error in that interpretation.