Court Affirms Permanent Total Disability Case Involving Notice Issue on Substantial Evidence Grounds
In Ryan Companies v. Bissell, No. 13-1869 (Iowa App. August 13, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed a decision of the commissioner concluding that the employer had actual notice of claimant's injury, that the injury arose out of and the course of claimant's employment and that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.
The major fighting issue in the case seemed to be the question of whether claimant had actually notified the employer of his injury. The agency found that because claimant had told the employer of his injury on the day it occurred (and a foreman had asked if he needed an ambulance), this was sufficient for actual notice. Claimant did not inform the employer that he was going to seek workers' compensation benefits at that time and initially believed that because he had previous back problems this was not work related. Despite this, the agency made a factual finding that the employer had actual notice, and this was upheld by the district court and court of appeals on substantial evidence grounds. Claimant had also argued that under the discovery rule, claimant did not understand the nature, seriousness and probable compensable consequences of the injury. The agency rejected this argument, and the court of appeals did as well, finding that since claimant felt a pop in his back while performing work activity, he had a duty to investigate the compensable nature of his ensuing back pain.
On the question of causation, defendants initially had a defense medical evaluation with Dr. Boulden, who found causation. A neurologist, Dr. Erickson, came to same conclusion. Defendants later engaged Dr. Abernathey, who indicated that the symptoms were consistent with a pre-existing condition. Although defendants argued that the deputy had become a proponent for the claimant, the court of appeals concluded that they would defer to the credibility findings of the agency, and to the weighing of the medical evidence.
Finally, on the question of extent of impairment, the court of appeals noted that this question was limited to whether substantial evidence supported the agency, and the court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a permanent total disability finding. Bissell represents a number of a string of recent opinions in which the appellate courts have refused to overturn the factual findings of the agency.
The major fighting issue in the case seemed to be the question of whether claimant had actually notified the employer of his injury. The agency found that because claimant had told the employer of his injury on the day it occurred (and a foreman had asked if he needed an ambulance), this was sufficient for actual notice. Claimant did not inform the employer that he was going to seek workers' compensation benefits at that time and initially believed that because he had previous back problems this was not work related. Despite this, the agency made a factual finding that the employer had actual notice, and this was upheld by the district court and court of appeals on substantial evidence grounds. Claimant had also argued that under the discovery rule, claimant did not understand the nature, seriousness and probable compensable consequences of the injury. The agency rejected this argument, and the court of appeals did as well, finding that since claimant felt a pop in his back while performing work activity, he had a duty to investigate the compensable nature of his ensuing back pain.
On the question of causation, defendants initially had a defense medical evaluation with Dr. Boulden, who found causation. A neurologist, Dr. Erickson, came to same conclusion. Defendants later engaged Dr. Abernathey, who indicated that the symptoms were consistent with a pre-existing condition. Although defendants argued that the deputy had become a proponent for the claimant, the court of appeals concluded that they would defer to the credibility findings of the agency, and to the weighing of the medical evidence.
Finally, on the question of extent of impairment, the court of appeals noted that this question was limited to whether substantial evidence supported the agency, and the court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a permanent total disability finding. Bissell represents a number of a string of recent opinions in which the appellate courts have refused to overturn the factual findings of the agency.
Comments
Post a Comment