Court of Appeals Affirms Commissioner's Decision Excluding Evidence, Applying Review Reopening Law
The court in Lull-Gumbusky v. Great Plains Communications, No. 13-1886 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015) addressed a number of issues and affirmed the decision of the commissioner on all issues.
The first issue presented to the court involved the exhibits presented by claimant. The deputy found at hearing that the exhibits did not conform to the format outlined in the hearing report, because they were organized chronologically rather than chronologically by provider. At hearing, the deputy indicated that the noncompliance would lead to the exclusion of evidence. Claimant did not conform his exhibits and some of the exhibits were excluded. The Court of Appeals noted that the agency had broad discretion in oversight and determinations about the admissibility of evidence and affirmed the exclusion of certain evidence.
The commissioner found that review reopening was not appropriate because substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the commissioner that the facts did not support the award of additional benefits. The court concluded that claimant had failed to prove that her medical condition had changed, and denied the award of further benefits.
The court also found that substantial evidence supported the continuing award of medical benefits to claimant for her back injury.
The upshot of he decision is that even if claimant believes that the agency's method of receiving the evidence is flawed and unsupported by specific rules, attempting to urge claimant's method of submitting evidence in light of a contrary method urged by the deputy is fraught with peril.
The first issue presented to the court involved the exhibits presented by claimant. The deputy found at hearing that the exhibits did not conform to the format outlined in the hearing report, because they were organized chronologically rather than chronologically by provider. At hearing, the deputy indicated that the noncompliance would lead to the exclusion of evidence. Claimant did not conform his exhibits and some of the exhibits were excluded. The Court of Appeals noted that the agency had broad discretion in oversight and determinations about the admissibility of evidence and affirmed the exclusion of certain evidence.
The commissioner found that review reopening was not appropriate because substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the commissioner that the facts did not support the award of additional benefits. The court concluded that claimant had failed to prove that her medical condition had changed, and denied the award of further benefits.
The court also found that substantial evidence supported the continuing award of medical benefits to claimant for her back injury.
The upshot of he decision is that even if claimant believes that the agency's method of receiving the evidence is flawed and unsupported by specific rules, attempting to urge claimant's method of submitting evidence in light of a contrary method urged by the deputy is fraught with peril.
Comments
Post a Comment