Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Benefits on Substantial Evidence Grounds

In Hinegardner v. Imon Communications, No. 14-0030 (Iowa App. Oct. 15, 2014), claimant alleged that substantial evidence did not support the commissioner's findings regarding credibility or medical causation.   As in most other such cases, the party arguing against substantial evidence loses on review.  The court affirmed the denial of benefits by the agency.

Claimant participated in a recorded statement with the adjuster following his back injury, and noted that he had surgery in 1976 for his back and had not treated with a doctor for years.  As it turned out, claimant had a lengthy history of treatment for lower back pain, which continued through 2008, the date of the injury.  Claimant alleged an injury two weeks after he started for the employer, after attempting to pick up a reel of cable weighing approximately 80 pounds.

Doctors who opined indicated that claimant had an exacerbation of his back condition as a result of the work incident, but Dr. Gordon stated that "to say something was aggravated from a pathological standpoint would really be hypothetical conjecture.  Following hearing, the deputy found claimant was "not an especially credible witness" particularly given his denial of treatment for his back in the recorded statement.

The Court of Appeals first addressed the question of credibility, finding that due regard was given to the commissioner's discretion to accept or reject testimony based on his assessment of witness credibility.  The court concluded that the credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. On the credibility question, claimant also raised an issue under section 17A.19(10)(f) of the Code, which addresses credibility determinations by a presiding officer who personally observed the demeanor of the witnesses.  Claimant argued that because the credibility determination was made based on statements made outside of the hearing (at the recorded statement), this was not entitled to deference.  The court noted that demeanor is only one of many factors to be determined in testing credibility.  The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the findings that claimant was not credible.

The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant had not demonstrated medical causation.  The court cited the familiar refrain that the weight and credibility assigned to experts' opinions was for the commissioner to determine.  The court found there was substantial evidence to support the commissioner's conclusions and affirmed the denial of benefits.

Hinegardner is another cautionary tale that if you are appealing a case based on a lack of substantial evidence, there are major hurdles to overcome that likely cannot be surmounted.  This applies regardless of whether the appeal is from claimants or defendants.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions