Court Affirms Award of Additional Medical Expenses for Back and Hip Injury
In Weitz Co. v. Selin, No. 13-0939 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the award of additional medical benefits to claimant. The employer had argued that the injuries were not causally connected to the workplace injury, and further rejected the argument that certain medical expenses were unauthorized.
Claimant suffered an accepted back injury, and had surgery with Dr. Nelson, who ultimately found claimant had reached MMI and suffered a 10% impairment. Claimant indicated that he was having continuing problems, and filed an application for alternate medical care. This was dismissed as defendants denied compensability. Claimant sought care from Drs. Kimelman, McGuire and Igram. At hearing, claimant was awarded PPD, but the request for additional medical expenses was denied by the deputy. The commissioner reversed on the medical expenses question.
The court of appeals found that the facts concerning the medical expenses were not in dispute and that the question of causal connection was an application of the law to the facts. The court found that causation was normally within the province of expert testimony, and that claimant's credibility was also in the province of the commissioner. Finding that a rational fact-finder could find a causal connection to claimant's hip injury, the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.
On the issue of additional treatment for claimant's accepted back injury, defendants argued that this was not authorized. At the district court level, the court did not address the authorization issue, but defendants did not file a Rule 1.904 motion. Absent this motion, the court declined to address this issue.
Claimant suffered an accepted back injury, and had surgery with Dr. Nelson, who ultimately found claimant had reached MMI and suffered a 10% impairment. Claimant indicated that he was having continuing problems, and filed an application for alternate medical care. This was dismissed as defendants denied compensability. Claimant sought care from Drs. Kimelman, McGuire and Igram. At hearing, claimant was awarded PPD, but the request for additional medical expenses was denied by the deputy. The commissioner reversed on the medical expenses question.
The court of appeals found that the facts concerning the medical expenses were not in dispute and that the question of causal connection was an application of the law to the facts. The court found that causation was normally within the province of expert testimony, and that claimant's credibility was also in the province of the commissioner. Finding that a rational fact-finder could find a causal connection to claimant's hip injury, the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.
On the issue of additional treatment for claimant's accepted back injury, defendants argued that this was not authorized. At the district court level, the court did not address the authorization issue, but defendants did not file a Rule 1.904 motion. Absent this motion, the court declined to address this issue.
Comments
Post a Comment