Supreme Court Again Reinforces Vitality of Substantial Evidence in Odd Lot Case

In Gits Mfg. v. Frank, 855 NW2d 195 (Iowa 2014), the Supreme Court once again noted that the determination evidentiary issues, including medical causation and the extent of industrial disability, is within the peculiar province of the commissioner, and absent unusual circumstances, should be determinative on appellate review.  In doing so, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had concluded that substantial evidence did not support the finding of permanent and total disability.

The agency concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled under the odd lot rule.  This determination was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which concluded that substantial evidence did not support the agency's finding.  The Supreme Court noted that substantial evidence supports an agency's decision even if the interpretation of the evidence may be open to a fair difference of opinion, citing Arndt v. City of LeClaire, 728 N.W.2d 389, 393 (Iowa 2007).

The Court of Appeals had discredited the evidence that claimant had no reasonable prospect of steady employment in the competitive labor market.  The Supreme Court noted that under Arndt, the reviewing court "only determines whether substantial evidence supports a finding 'according to those witnesses whom the commissioner believed.'"  The court noted that although there was conflicting evidence on the question of whether claimant was permanently and totally disabled, but that ultimately this was a decision for the agency.  The court also noted that the commissioner's consideration of lay evidence was appropriate and noted that "it is a fundamental requirement that the commissioner consider all evidence, both medical and nonmedical."  The court further noted that lay witness testimony was both relevant and material upon the cause and extent of injury.  Citing Miller v. Lauridsen Foods, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Iowa 1994).  The court concluded that claimant had made a prima facie case for odd lot based on the medical and vocational testimony, as well as lay testimony.  Although the employer presented evidence of employability and a different fact finder may have made a different finding, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency.

Although the court was also presented with an issue involving the credits owed to the employer, this issue was summarily affirmed without discussion.

In three cases over the last three years, the Supreme Court has accepted cases for further review where the primary issue was whether the commissioner's opinion was supported by substantial evidence.  In all of these cases  (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 2011); Mike Brooks v. House, 843 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 2014), and Gits) the agency had ruled that claimants were permanently and totally disabled and the Court of Appeals had reversed that finding.  The Supreme Court, based on the substantial evidence rule, reversed the COA in all three cases, seemingly providing notice that the agency is to be given deference when making factual findings concerning causation and extent of impairment.

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