Court Affirms 5% Industrial Disability Award, Finds Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Sufficient

In Bell v. 3E, No. 14-0044 (Iowa App. March 11, 2015), the court upheld the award of a 5% disability in the face of claimant's argument that the agency had failed to make adequate findings of fact, conclusions of law and credibility determinations under section 17A.16 of the Iowa Code.  The fighting issue in the case was whether the agency appropriately considered (or failed to consider) evidence presented that demonstrated that claimant was unable to work as a firefighter as a result of the injury (a job he had not held in the past).

Claimant suffered a slip and fall at work, resulting in a left wrist sprain, ganglion cyst, lower back strain and a contusion to the left shoulder and elbow.  Claimant had surgery for the cyst and physical therapy for the wrist and shoulder.  An MRI showed no abnormalities of the back.  Claimant was returned to regular duty work.  He was found to have a 5% industrial disability.

Claimant argued at hearing that the agency ignored evidence in the record concerning his pre- and post-injury capacity to be a firefighter.  Although claimant had appeared on the list to be a firefighter in Des Moines and had been a volunteer firefighter in Grimes, he was never offered a firefighter position, and had not applied for any firefighter positions since 1997 (claimant's injury was in 2010). Claimant's position at 3E was largely a sedentary position.  In the decision, the agency indicated that the desire of claimant to be a firefighter was an attempt to exaggerate his claim.  From this, claimant argued that the statute does not require an employee to have pursued a particular position to have the capacity to perform it.

The district court found there was no objective proof that claimant was capable of being a firefighter and therefore the commissioner correctly disregarded this fact when determining the loss of earning capacity.  The court of appeals agreed with this analysis.  Claimant also argued that the agency had not separated its findings of facts from conclusions of law and did not adjudicate credibility.  The appellate court noted that so long as the analytical process used by the agency could be determined, no error had been committed.  Finally, the court concluded that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement, despite the fact that the IME doctor had indicated that MMI would not have been reached unless there was no further treatment.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions