Court Of Appeal Affirms Award of Impairment Rating in Scheduled Member Case In Face of Argument That Commissioner Did Not Adequately Explain Its Impairment Determination

In Horn v. Cummins Filtration-Lake Mills, No. 1300351 (Iowa App. Nov. 6, 2013), the Court of Appeals affirmed a decision awarding claimant the 6% impairment rating found by Dr. Kuhnlein, for an injury to the arm.  Three impairment ratings were presented at hearing, a 10% rating from Dr. Formanek, a 12% rating from Dr. Adams and a 6% rating from Dr. Kuhnlein.  The deputy awarded the 6% rating.  Claimant filed a rehearing application contesting that the deputy had used the wrong legal standard and noting that numerous aspects of the AMA Guides were "faulty and unscientific."  The rehearing petition was not answered and was deemed denied.  The ruling was affirmed on appeal.

On rehearing at the commissioner level, claimant argued that the determination of functional disability was not merely related to the impairment ratings.  The rehearing application was denied, and indicated that the arguments of counsel had been considered prior to the rendering of the Appeal Decision.  On judicial review, the court concluded that the agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence, specifically the report of Dr. Kuhnlein.  Claimant filed a motion to enlarge, arguing that the AMA Guides only provided ratings to certain impairments, and that the commissioner was required to consider these arguments.

The Court of Appeals, citing to Sherman v. Pella Corp., 576 N.W.2d 312, 322 (Iowa 1998), notes that the determination of functional disability is not limited to the ratings of impairment.  The Guides, according to Sherman, may be used for determining the disability of a scheduled member.  The court finds that the agency considered both medical and non-medical testimony, noted that the loss of use of a scheduled member may exceed the impairment ratings, and specifically acknowledged that claimant's testimony may be considered.  The court finds that although the discussion of the adoption of Dr. Kuhnlein's rating was "perfunctory at best," was "not so completely devoid of any finding that we have nothing to review."  The court finds substantial evidence to support the agency's determination.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions