Court of Appeals Affirms 35% Industrial Disability Award
In Emco v. Sehic, No. 14-0336 (Iowa App. Oct. 15, 2014), the court affirms a 35% industrial disability finding based on the substantial evidence. The medical records in the case would have provided support for the conclusion that there was no objective evidence to support work restrictions, but the commissioner found, based on other medical evidence, that there had been a permanent impairment and restrictions were appropriate. Based on this, the commissioner concluded that a 35% industrial award was appropriate.
Three of defendants' doctors (Drs. Iqbal, Adelman and Boarini) concluded that claimant's complaints were minor and subjective in nature (although there was a degenerative condition found in the neck and back). Dr. Delbridge and Dr. Bansal found that there were back and neck problems and found impairment and restrictions. Following these opinions, Dr. Neff issued a report indicating that the injury was not related to claimant's work.
Claimant worked for a time following his injury in an accommodated position, but eventually left that position because he did not believe he could perform the work. On these facts, a 35% industrial disability finding was made, which was affirmed by the commissioner and the district court.
On review, the employer claimed that because there were numerous medical opinions indicating that claimant had not suffered a disability, and the deputy commissioner had indicated that his pain complaints were out of proportion to the medical evidence, a reversal of the decision was required. In reviewing the case, the court noted that under Mike Brooks v. House, 843 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Iowa 2014), "our analysis is shaped largely by the deference we are statutorily obligated to afford the commissioner's findings of fact." The court noted that "however attenuated from the weight of the evidence the commissioner's decision may be, as long as there is some evidence supporting the conclusion, we must affirm the commissioner." Accordingly, despite the finding that claimant was not completely credible, substantial evidence was found to support the decision.
Both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals appear to be in accord that so long as some evidence supports the decision of the commissioner on factual issues, the decision will be affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.
Three of defendants' doctors (Drs. Iqbal, Adelman and Boarini) concluded that claimant's complaints were minor and subjective in nature (although there was a degenerative condition found in the neck and back). Dr. Delbridge and Dr. Bansal found that there were back and neck problems and found impairment and restrictions. Following these opinions, Dr. Neff issued a report indicating that the injury was not related to claimant's work.
Claimant worked for a time following his injury in an accommodated position, but eventually left that position because he did not believe he could perform the work. On these facts, a 35% industrial disability finding was made, which was affirmed by the commissioner and the district court.
On review, the employer claimed that because there were numerous medical opinions indicating that claimant had not suffered a disability, and the deputy commissioner had indicated that his pain complaints were out of proportion to the medical evidence, a reversal of the decision was required. In reviewing the case, the court noted that under Mike Brooks v. House, 843 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Iowa 2014), "our analysis is shaped largely by the deference we are statutorily obligated to afford the commissioner's findings of fact." The court noted that "however attenuated from the weight of the evidence the commissioner's decision may be, as long as there is some evidence supporting the conclusion, we must affirm the commissioner." Accordingly, despite the finding that claimant was not completely credible, substantial evidence was found to support the decision.
Both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals appear to be in accord that so long as some evidence supports the decision of the commissioner on factual issues, the decision will be affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.
Comments
Post a Comment