Court of Appeals Affirms Commissioner on Rate, Penalty and Other Issues
In Wegner v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 14-0300 (Iowa App. Feb. 25, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner on rate and penalty issues. Claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement at the time of hearing, and the the deputy deferred ruling on permanency, an alleged underpayment of temporary benefits and penalty claims because of this. The commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy.
Claimant's initial argument was that the commissioner failed to comply with section 17A.16 of the Code, which requires that a proposed or final decision is to include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. The court found that step-by-step reasoning in an agency decision was not essential. so long as "it is possible to determine what evidence was considered and why certain evidence was credited over other evidence." Citing Schutjer v. Algona Manor Care Ctr., 780 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2010). The court found that the agency had explicated its reasons for rejecting claimant's rate calculations, denying penalty benefits and deferring consideration of temporary disability benefits.
On the question of rate, the court initially found that this issue involved the application of law to fact, and was reviewed to determine whether it was "illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable." The deputy had criticized the evidence of both parties on the rate issue, finding that defendants' inclusions failed to include raw data, and finding that claimant's exhibits were "in the form of scissored snippets of original documents mashed together." The commissioner found that Exhibit D with its inefficiencies "clearly trumps" Exhibit 2 in providing an articulate reasoned basis for calculation of the average weekly wage. The court finds that the commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant asserted a penalty for the rate paid to claimant initially. The rate was increased during the proceedings by the employer and a check was sent to the employee. The deputy found that no penalty was due because of claimant's significant delay in responding to Hormel's request for information supporting a higher rate together with inaccuracies in the information that was ultimately provided. The Court of Appeals found there was substantial evidence to support the commissioner's implicit findings under section 86.13(4)(c).
The agency had also deferred consideration of temporary benefit issues, as it comported with administrative economy and adjudicative consistency. Claimant contended that everything necessary to resolve these issues had been submitted. The court found that although this may have been true, the commissioner was within his discretion in deferring consideration of these issues.
Claimant's initial argument was that the commissioner failed to comply with section 17A.16 of the Code, which requires that a proposed or final decision is to include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. The court found that step-by-step reasoning in an agency decision was not essential. so long as "it is possible to determine what evidence was considered and why certain evidence was credited over other evidence." Citing Schutjer v. Algona Manor Care Ctr., 780 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2010). The court found that the agency had explicated its reasons for rejecting claimant's rate calculations, denying penalty benefits and deferring consideration of temporary disability benefits.
On the question of rate, the court initially found that this issue involved the application of law to fact, and was reviewed to determine whether it was "illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable." The deputy had criticized the evidence of both parties on the rate issue, finding that defendants' inclusions failed to include raw data, and finding that claimant's exhibits were "in the form of scissored snippets of original documents mashed together." The commissioner found that Exhibit D with its inefficiencies "clearly trumps" Exhibit 2 in providing an articulate reasoned basis for calculation of the average weekly wage. The court finds that the commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant asserted a penalty for the rate paid to claimant initially. The rate was increased during the proceedings by the employer and a check was sent to the employee. The deputy found that no penalty was due because of claimant's significant delay in responding to Hormel's request for information supporting a higher rate together with inaccuracies in the information that was ultimately provided. The Court of Appeals found there was substantial evidence to support the commissioner's implicit findings under section 86.13(4)(c).
The agency had also deferred consideration of temporary benefit issues, as it comported with administrative economy and adjudicative consistency. Claimant contended that everything necessary to resolve these issues had been submitted. The court found that although this may have been true, the commissioner was within his discretion in deferring consideration of these issues.
Comments
Post a Comment