Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Second Injury Fund Benefits

In Bolton v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa, No. 13-1620 (Iowa App. July 30, 2014), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner finding that claimant had not demonstrated a first injury for Second Injury Fund purposes, and thus was not entitled to benefits against the Fund.  Claimant argued that he had a first injury to his left knee in 1982, and noted that an IME had "extrapolated" a 1% impairment rating to the left leg.  At hearing, claimant admitted that he did not suffer any difficulties with his knee until after he began working for the employer some 18 years after the incident.  The court concluded that "there is, quite simply, nothing in the record to tie Bolton's complaints of knee pain to the 1982 injury until after he filed for workers' compensation benefits in this matter."

The court noted that the 1% rating was assigned based on subjective complaints of pain, and noted that there were never any restrictions given as a result of this injury, and that there was no objective evidence of loss os use.  For those reasons, the commissioner did not give weight to Dr. Kuhnlein's opinion, and neither does the Court of Appeals.  The court ultimately finds that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner and affirms the denial of Fund benefits.

The decision is consistent with recent Supreme Court cases finding that the courts on to defer to the agency on substantial evidence issues, such as Pease and House.  It does make it incumbent on a claimant to demonstrate that there has been some effect from the first injury (some "loss of use") other than simply a rating of impairment.  Ultimately, the allegations of a first injury appear relatively weak in this case, and the assignment of an impairment rating was not enough standing alone to create a loss of use under the statute.