Court of Appeals Reverses PTD Decision, Finding That Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Decision of Agency
In a case which runs counter to most of the cases that appear in these synopses, the Iowa Court of Appeals in Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House, No. 13-0303 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2013), held that the decision of the agency was not supported by substantial evidence. This despite the fact that there was no medical evidence supporting the contention of defendants. Judge Vaitheswaran dissented and would have affirmed the case on substantial evidence grounds.
Claimant had suffered an admitted injury in March of 2007. Claimant returned to work, but testified that he continued to experience significant back problems while working. In January of 2008, he reported to the company doctor that he had pushed a door at work and had felt increased pain as a result of that incident. He was seen by a surgeon, Dr. Hatfield, who ultimately performed three surgeries. Claimant returned to work briefly following the first surgery but was unable to continue working as a truck driver.
Dr. Hatfield provided reports indicating that claimant's surgeries and disability was attributable to the March injury. Dr. Kuhnlein, who provided an IME, came to the same conclusion. In his report, Dr. Kuhnlein specifically addressed the question of whether the January door opening incident had changed the course of causation, and concluded that it had not. Dr. Kuhnlein stated that the door opening incident was a sequella of the original incident. Defendants presented no medical evidence to support their theory that the door opening incident was the cause of claimant's back problems.
The arbitration and appeal decisions concluded that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and specifically out of the March 2007 incident. Permanent total disability benefits were awarded. The award was affirmed by the district court. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Dr. Hatfield was not aware of the door opening incident, and that Dr. Kuhnlein had relied on Dr. Hatfield's flawed report in coming to his conclusions. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings to determine claimant's industrial disability prior to the time of the January door incident.
An application for further review was filed at the Supreme Court. Claimant in the case was represented by Martin Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga. NOTE: Further review was accepted by the Supreme Court and the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. Mike Brooks v. House, 843 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 2014)
Claimant had suffered an admitted injury in March of 2007. Claimant returned to work, but testified that he continued to experience significant back problems while working. In January of 2008, he reported to the company doctor that he had pushed a door at work and had felt increased pain as a result of that incident. He was seen by a surgeon, Dr. Hatfield, who ultimately performed three surgeries. Claimant returned to work briefly following the first surgery but was unable to continue working as a truck driver.
Dr. Hatfield provided reports indicating that claimant's surgeries and disability was attributable to the March injury. Dr. Kuhnlein, who provided an IME, came to the same conclusion. In his report, Dr. Kuhnlein specifically addressed the question of whether the January door opening incident had changed the course of causation, and concluded that it had not. Dr. Kuhnlein stated that the door opening incident was a sequella of the original incident. Defendants presented no medical evidence to support their theory that the door opening incident was the cause of claimant's back problems.
The arbitration and appeal decisions concluded that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and specifically out of the March 2007 incident. Permanent total disability benefits were awarded. The award was affirmed by the district court. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Dr. Hatfield was not aware of the door opening incident, and that Dr. Kuhnlein had relied on Dr. Hatfield's flawed report in coming to his conclusions. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings to determine claimant's industrial disability prior to the time of the January door incident.
An application for further review was filed at the Supreme Court. Claimant in the case was represented by Martin Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga. NOTE: Further review was accepted by the Supreme Court and the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. Mike Brooks v. House, 843 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 2014)
Comments
Post a Comment