Court of Appeals Affirms 40% PPD Award
In Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Sharar, No. 14-1648 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015), the court finds that substantial evidence supports the determination of the agency that claimant suffered a 40% industrial loss.
Claimant suffered an injury to his right shoulder, requiring two surgeries. As a result, claimant's job with the employer changed, although he was able to perform his tasks largely unassisted. Claimant's IME physician provided restrictions of 35 pounds lifting and a vocational specialist noted a reduction of employability of 61%, and a reduction of labor market access of 70%, with a loss of earning capacity of 65%. The arbitration decision, as affirmed by the commissioner, resulted in a finding of a 40% loss of earning capacity.
The court finds that substantial evidence supported the 40% industrial finding, noting claimant was prevented from engaging in heavy physical labor, had difficulties adapting to retraining and learning new skills. The employer cited to two cases to argue that claimant was not entitled to 40% industrial disability "as a matter of law." Wright v. MidAmerican Energy Co., No. 01-0312 (Iowa App. May 15, 2002) and Mayhew v. Tri County, Inc., No 5035006 (App. Oct. 4, 2011). The court noted that this was not an issue of law, but of fact. The court disagreed with defendants' contentions that the agency's award was inconsistent with its prior practice and precedent. "What Polaris describes as inconsistencies between Sharar's case and his cited cases are simply different findings of fact based upon the circumstances unique to each case." The court found that the facts in Wright and Mayhew did not undermine the agency's determination. The court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner.
Claimant suffered an injury to his right shoulder, requiring two surgeries. As a result, claimant's job with the employer changed, although he was able to perform his tasks largely unassisted. Claimant's IME physician provided restrictions of 35 pounds lifting and a vocational specialist noted a reduction of employability of 61%, and a reduction of labor market access of 70%, with a loss of earning capacity of 65%. The arbitration decision, as affirmed by the commissioner, resulted in a finding of a 40% loss of earning capacity.
The court finds that substantial evidence supported the 40% industrial finding, noting claimant was prevented from engaging in heavy physical labor, had difficulties adapting to retraining and learning new skills. The employer cited to two cases to argue that claimant was not entitled to 40% industrial disability "as a matter of law." Wright v. MidAmerican Energy Co., No. 01-0312 (Iowa App. May 15, 2002) and Mayhew v. Tri County, Inc., No 5035006 (App. Oct. 4, 2011). The court noted that this was not an issue of law, but of fact. The court disagreed with defendants' contentions that the agency's award was inconsistent with its prior practice and precedent. "What Polaris describes as inconsistencies between Sharar's case and his cited cases are simply different findings of fact based upon the circumstances unique to each case." The court found that the facts in Wright and Mayhew did not undermine the agency's determination. The court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner.
Comments
Post a Comment