Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals, Affirms Permanent Total Disability Award
In Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House, No. 843 NW2d 885 (Iowa 2014), the Supreme Court, which had accepted further review, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and concluded that the agency decision was supported by substantial evidence, thereby affirming the permanent total disability award of the agency. The agency had previously found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled, a finding that had been affirmed by the district court.
At the Court of Appeals level, a 2-1 majority of the court had concluded that the decision of the agency had not been supported by the evidence. The court had concluded that the doctors who had found causation did not know of a second injury that claimant had sustained at work after he had been found to have reached maximum medical improvement. The Court of Appeals found that the treaters had not known of this incident and that the IME doctor's opinion was internally inconsistent because it relied on the opinion of Dr. Hatfield, one of the treaters, and found that claimant had no back problems before the second incident.
The Supreme Court noted that the legislature had vested the commissioner with the discretion to make factual determinations. The court also noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion. The court also concluded that their task was not to determine whether the evidence supported a different finding, but whether the evidence supported the findings actually made.
In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court indicated that its analysis was "shaped largely by the deference we are statutorily obligated to afford the commissioner's findings of fact." The court noted that claimant had presented the opinions of two medical experts that his injury arose out of his employment. Notably, defendants presented no medical opinions to the contrary. The court further noted that acceptance of an expert opinion was in the "peculiar province" of the commissioner. The court found that even if the surgeon did not know of the second event (the opening of a door at work) the opinion of the IME doctor, Dr. Kuhnlein, was based on a thorough independent physical exam and review of the history, including the door opening incident. The court found that the decision of the agency was amply supported by the evidence presented.
The House case was litigated by Marty Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga. The decision of the Supreme Court will hopefully lessen the chance that cases are appealed strictly on factual grounds, as the finding of facts, including medical causation, is an action where the commissioner is to be given deference.
At the Court of Appeals level, a 2-1 majority of the court had concluded that the decision of the agency had not been supported by the evidence. The court had concluded that the doctors who had found causation did not know of a second injury that claimant had sustained at work after he had been found to have reached maximum medical improvement. The Court of Appeals found that the treaters had not known of this incident and that the IME doctor's opinion was internally inconsistent because it relied on the opinion of Dr. Hatfield, one of the treaters, and found that claimant had no back problems before the second incident.
The Supreme Court noted that the legislature had vested the commissioner with the discretion to make factual determinations. The court also noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion. The court also concluded that their task was not to determine whether the evidence supported a different finding, but whether the evidence supported the findings actually made.
In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court indicated that its analysis was "shaped largely by the deference we are statutorily obligated to afford the commissioner's findings of fact." The court noted that claimant had presented the opinions of two medical experts that his injury arose out of his employment. Notably, defendants presented no medical opinions to the contrary. The court further noted that acceptance of an expert opinion was in the "peculiar province" of the commissioner. The court found that even if the surgeon did not know of the second event (the opening of a door at work) the opinion of the IME doctor, Dr. Kuhnlein, was based on a thorough independent physical exam and review of the history, including the door opening incident. The court found that the decision of the agency was amply supported by the evidence presented.
The House case was litigated by Marty Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga. The decision of the Supreme Court will hopefully lessen the chance that cases are appealed strictly on factual grounds, as the finding of facts, including medical causation, is an action where the commissioner is to be given deference.
ReplyDeleteThanks for hosting! This week I’ve shared a post about my decision to stop eating corn and cucumbers and other summer produce until they come into season again where I
live.
Car Accidents