Court of Appeals Affirms Award of Temporary and Permanent Benefits
Catholic Health Initiatives v. Hunter, No. 14-0202 (Iowa App. Nov. 26, 2014) involved questions of causation, healing period benefits, permanency benefits and medical care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's award of benefits.
Claimant had systemic lupus and was receiving social security disability benefits, but returned to work after those benefits were terminated. She suffered a traumatic injury to her left wrist, hip and knee, and also complained of headaches as a part of this injury. Following this incident, claimant had a fall at home and visited the doctor following that fall. Claimant's symptoms had largely resolved when she slipped and fell again at work on March 3, 2010 (the earlier injuries were in 2009). She was placed on work restrictions following this fall.
Claimant was offered light duty work during the day, but could not perform that work because of family obligations. No light duty work was available at night. Claimant was placed on FMLA leave, but she was shortly thereafter released without restrictions. After her return to work, she continued to have symptoms in her hip and back, and began missing days at work. In December of 2010, she was terminated for exceeding the annual amount of FMLA leave allowed by the employer. The treating physician (Dr. Mahoney) found claimant had not reached MMI, but the IME physician (Dr. Epp) found MMI and provided 10 pound lifting restrictions.
The decision of the agency found that the injury was related to claimant's work, awarded a brief period of temporary benefits in March of 2010, and placed claimant on a running healing period. Before the court of appeals, the employer argued that claimant was capable of performing employment that was substantially similar to that she had performed before her work injury. The agency had found that although claimant had no formal restrictions, the employer had allowed modifications in order to allow claimant to continue working. The court of appeals agreed, holding that this finding was supported by substantial evidence.
With respect to causation for the hip injury, the court also found substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency. The court noted that the finding of credibility by the agency was to be accepted, noting that the fact finder had the opportunity to view the witness. The court found that both the hip injury and an injury to the neck were related to claimant's work activities.
During the course of proceedings, claimant had sought care from Dr. Mahoney, and sought reimbursement of his costs. The agency noted that that care provided by Dr. Mahoney was entirely reasonable and had been beneficial to claimant. Under Bell Bros. v. Gwinn, the agency and court concluded that reimbursement of the costs for beneficial care was appropriate.
Claimant had systemic lupus and was receiving social security disability benefits, but returned to work after those benefits were terminated. She suffered a traumatic injury to her left wrist, hip and knee, and also complained of headaches as a part of this injury. Following this incident, claimant had a fall at home and visited the doctor following that fall. Claimant's symptoms had largely resolved when she slipped and fell again at work on March 3, 2010 (the earlier injuries were in 2009). She was placed on work restrictions following this fall.
Claimant was offered light duty work during the day, but could not perform that work because of family obligations. No light duty work was available at night. Claimant was placed on FMLA leave, but she was shortly thereafter released without restrictions. After her return to work, she continued to have symptoms in her hip and back, and began missing days at work. In December of 2010, she was terminated for exceeding the annual amount of FMLA leave allowed by the employer. The treating physician (Dr. Mahoney) found claimant had not reached MMI, but the IME physician (Dr. Epp) found MMI and provided 10 pound lifting restrictions.
The decision of the agency found that the injury was related to claimant's work, awarded a brief period of temporary benefits in March of 2010, and placed claimant on a running healing period. Before the court of appeals, the employer argued that claimant was capable of performing employment that was substantially similar to that she had performed before her work injury. The agency had found that although claimant had no formal restrictions, the employer had allowed modifications in order to allow claimant to continue working. The court of appeals agreed, holding that this finding was supported by substantial evidence.
With respect to causation for the hip injury, the court also found substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency. The court noted that the finding of credibility by the agency was to be accepted, noting that the fact finder had the opportunity to view the witness. The court found that both the hip injury and an injury to the neck were related to claimant's work activities.
During the course of proceedings, claimant had sought care from Dr. Mahoney, and sought reimbursement of his costs. The agency noted that that care provided by Dr. Mahoney was entirely reasonable and had been beneficial to claimant. Under Bell Bros. v. Gwinn, the agency and court concluded that reimbursement of the costs for beneficial care was appropriate.
Comments
Post a Comment