Court of Appeals Remands Claim to Commissioner, Finds that Commissioner Did Not Consider All Evidence
In JBS Swift and Company v. Hedberg, No. 14-0565 (Iowa App. Jan. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals reversed a permanent total disability award, finding that the commissioner's designee, who had increased the award from 80% to PTD, failed to consider important evidence in reaching the PTD conclusion. Thus, what seems to be a substantial evidence question, for which there was record support, is remanded to the commissioner.
Claimant suffered a shoulder injury at work. He also suffered from preexisting problems of hearing loss and speech problems. He had worked for 20 years despite these problems. Claimant left his job with the employer, according to the court, because he was unable to care for himself following the unexpected death of his wife. Claimant testified that if his wife had not died, he would have stayed in Iowa and continued to work at Swift.
Two vocational experts offered reports in the case. Carma Mitchell found that there was a 69% loss of access to the labor market based on the physical restrictions. She also concluded that given all of claimant's limitations, his employment options were extremely limited. Lana Sellner indicated that there were seven positions at Swift that would be available to claimant if Dr. Neff's restrictions were taken into account, two positions if Dr. Bansal's restrictions were used.
The arbitration decision concluded that the employer had offered suitable light work within claimant's restrictions and concluded that there was an 80% industrial disability. On appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that claimant was unable to perform work within his experience, training, education and physical capacities. The appeal decision concluded that the positions offered by Swift were make work at best. On judicial review, the district court concluded that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence and was not "illogical, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious."
The Court of Appeals rejected claimant's contention that the case was solely a substantial evidence case, and agreed with the employer that the question was whether the agency's action was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable because the agency failed to consider and misstated the evidence. The court concludes that the record "reflects the commissioner's designee simply ignored or overlooked record evidence." The court concludes that the statements of the agency regarding the evidence put on by the employer concerning the jobs claimant could perform were "demonstrably incorrect." The court states that "the deference afforded the agency on substantial evidence review is predicated on the assumption the agency reviewed and considered the evidence in reaching its decision." The court remands to the agency to reevaluate the evidence and to make a new decision based on the existing evidence.
Claimant suffered a shoulder injury at work. He also suffered from preexisting problems of hearing loss and speech problems. He had worked for 20 years despite these problems. Claimant left his job with the employer, according to the court, because he was unable to care for himself following the unexpected death of his wife. Claimant testified that if his wife had not died, he would have stayed in Iowa and continued to work at Swift.
Two vocational experts offered reports in the case. Carma Mitchell found that there was a 69% loss of access to the labor market based on the physical restrictions. She also concluded that given all of claimant's limitations, his employment options were extremely limited. Lana Sellner indicated that there were seven positions at Swift that would be available to claimant if Dr. Neff's restrictions were taken into account, two positions if Dr. Bansal's restrictions were used.
The arbitration decision concluded that the employer had offered suitable light work within claimant's restrictions and concluded that there was an 80% industrial disability. On appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that claimant was unable to perform work within his experience, training, education and physical capacities. The appeal decision concluded that the positions offered by Swift were make work at best. On judicial review, the district court concluded that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence and was not "illogical, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious."
The Court of Appeals rejected claimant's contention that the case was solely a substantial evidence case, and agreed with the employer that the question was whether the agency's action was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable because the agency failed to consider and misstated the evidence. The court concludes that the record "reflects the commissioner's designee simply ignored or overlooked record evidence." The court concludes that the statements of the agency regarding the evidence put on by the employer concerning the jobs claimant could perform were "demonstrably incorrect." The court states that "the deference afforded the agency on substantial evidence review is predicated on the assumption the agency reviewed and considered the evidence in reaching its decision." The court remands to the agency to reevaluate the evidence and to make a new decision based on the existing evidence.
Comments
Post a Comment