Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Alternate Medical Care

This case represents the fourth time the appellate court has ruled in Millenkamp v. Millenkamp Cattle Co., No. 14-0732 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015).  In this iteration of the case, the court addresses an issue of alternate medical care, where claimant urges authorization of Dr. Neiman, the neurologist of his choice.  The court describes this proceeding as "virtually identical" to a 2013 ruling by the court denying alternate medical care.

Claimant challenged the employer's refusal to authorize care with Dr. Neiman and the employer's authorization of Dr. Cullen.  The agency noted that claimant had failed to notify the employer of his original neurologist's retirement, his decision to begin treating with Dr. Neiman and his refusal to treat with Dr. Cullen. The agency concluded that claimant sought care with Dr. Neiman not because Dr. Neiman could provide better care, but simply because he wanted to choose his own doctor.

The court found the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence.  The agency also noted, and the court affirmed, that under Bell Bros. v. Gwinn, the care offered by the employer must be considered vis a vis the care obtained by claimant. In Mr. Millenkamp's case, he refused to see defendants' authorized physician, so it was impossible to determine the issue of beneficial care.  The court also affirmed the denial of the commissioner to reopen the record to admit post-hearing evidence.