Court of Appeals Affirms Back Injury Award, Penalties; Affirms Denial of Claim for Right Knee Injury
The court in Jenson v Cummins Filtration-Lake Mills, No. 13-1733 (Iowa App. Jan. 14, 2015) affirmed an award of benefits for a back injury, and the penalty benefits associated with that award. The court also affirmed the denial of claimant's knee claim. Claimant appealed the denial of the knee claim and also argued that the district court entered a judgment not in conformance with the commissioner's award regarding the back injury.
At hearing, the deputy concluded that claimant had failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the knee claim. The commissioner affirmed, noting that the deputy's decision was based largely on the deputy's assessment that claimant's testimony was not credible or convincing. The district court noted that the information on which Dr. Kuhnlein relied for his causation opinion was not correct (as the deputy had found) because claimant was not required to plant her knee in the way stated to Dr. Kuhnlein. The deputy concluded that claimant's injury to her knee was the result of degenerative disease and poorly controlled diabetes, as well as her weight. The court finds that this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and further notes that the conclusion is not illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.
Claimant also argued that the district court erred in miscontruing the commissioner's award when converting the award to a judgment. Claimant argued that the penalty should be applied to the gross amount of weekly benefits due from the period from December 8, 2009 through the date of the hearing, January 7, 2011. In deciding the case, the district court concluded that penalties only applied to the net amount of benefits received after subtracting for receipt of long and short term disability benefits. On appeal, the court notees that section 86.13(4)(a) provides that the workers' compensation commission is to award benefits of up to 50% of benefits "denied, delayed or terminated." The court concluded that a lesser amount of benefits was denied, delayed or terminated, given the payment of long and short term disability. The court found that claimant's argument would penalize the employer for the full amount of benefits owed regardless of whether claimant "was denied benefits completely or received only one dollar less than which she was entitled." The court believed that ascribing penalty to all benefits would defeat the statute's purpose. It is likely that this issue will be the subject of an application for further review to the Supreme Court.
At hearing, the deputy concluded that claimant had failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the knee claim. The commissioner affirmed, noting that the deputy's decision was based largely on the deputy's assessment that claimant's testimony was not credible or convincing. The district court noted that the information on which Dr. Kuhnlein relied for his causation opinion was not correct (as the deputy had found) because claimant was not required to plant her knee in the way stated to Dr. Kuhnlein. The deputy concluded that claimant's injury to her knee was the result of degenerative disease and poorly controlled diabetes, as well as her weight. The court finds that this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and further notes that the conclusion is not illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.
Claimant also argued that the district court erred in miscontruing the commissioner's award when converting the award to a judgment. Claimant argued that the penalty should be applied to the gross amount of weekly benefits due from the period from December 8, 2009 through the date of the hearing, January 7, 2011. In deciding the case, the district court concluded that penalties only applied to the net amount of benefits received after subtracting for receipt of long and short term disability benefits. On appeal, the court notees that section 86.13(4)(a) provides that the workers' compensation commission is to award benefits of up to 50% of benefits "denied, delayed or terminated." The court concluded that a lesser amount of benefits was denied, delayed or terminated, given the payment of long and short term disability. The court found that claimant's argument would penalize the employer for the full amount of benefits owed regardless of whether claimant "was denied benefits completely or received only one dollar less than which she was entitled." The court believed that ascribing penalty to all benefits would defeat the statute's purpose. It is likely that this issue will be the subject of an application for further review to the Supreme Court.
Comments
Post a Comment