Court of Appeals Affirms PTD Decision, Finds Pre-Employment Retirement Plans Not Preclusive of PTD
In Archer Daniels Midland v. Warren, No. 14-0956 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015), the court affirmed an agency decision finding permanent total disability. The court rejected defendants' claim that claimant's plan to retire, which were made before the injury occurred, precluded an award of permanent total disability.
Claimant had a severe, preexisting injury to his right hip. Despite this, claimant was able to work steadily from 1969, when the injury occurred, through 2001, when he began to work for ADM. His health at that time was said to be excellent and he was under no restrictions. Claimant began to suffer pain in his hip and went to his doctor in January of 2009. He was treated symptomatically for over a year and the possibility of a total hip arthroplasty was discussed in September of 2010. The total hip replacement was conducted on February 22, 2011. Claimant returned to work but was told that his restrictions could not be accommodated.
The deputy concluded that claimant's right hip osteoarthritis and need for hip replacement were not due to claimant's work, citing the opinions of Dr .Boulden and rejecting the opinions of Dr. Miller. The commissioner reversed on appeal, finding that claimant's duties at work were such that there had been an aggravation of his underlying health condition, based on the records of the doctors who had opined on the issue. The commissioner found permanent total disability. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The court also rejected defendants' claim that claimant's planned retirement precluded permanent total disability.
The court noted the deference provided the commissioner on factual matters, citing Pease and Mike Brooks. Defendants argued that because the commissioner had not discussed Dr. Munjal's contradictory opinions, the case must be remanded to the commissioner to reweigh the evidence. The court rejected this argument, finding that it was clear from the commissioner's decision that the opinions of all three experts had been considered. The Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that under McDowell v. Town of Clarksville, 241 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1976), the district court had excluded consideration of Dr. Munjal's opinions. The appellate court notes that the district court looked at the record without Dr. Munjal's opinions to determine whether there was substantial evidence of causation nonetheless. The court found that there was.
The court noted that if a condition is aggravated, accelerated, worsened or lighted up by the injury, claimant may recover and noted further that the standard of "material" aggravation or acceleration was the correct standard. The court found that substantial evidence supported the finding of permanent total disability.
On the question of the extent of disability, the court addressed defendants' contention that claimant had agreed when he visited his personal physician in October of 2010 that he planned to retire in March of 2011. The court, citing Second Injury Fund v. Nelson, 544 N.W.2d 258, 265-67 (Iowa 1995), rejected the reasoning that a person nearing the end of his normal work life should have his earning capacity reduced. The court also noted the ADM's characterization of the retirement as "voluntary" was "not without question." The court concluded that the determination that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
Claimant had a severe, preexisting injury to his right hip. Despite this, claimant was able to work steadily from 1969, when the injury occurred, through 2001, when he began to work for ADM. His health at that time was said to be excellent and he was under no restrictions. Claimant began to suffer pain in his hip and went to his doctor in January of 2009. He was treated symptomatically for over a year and the possibility of a total hip arthroplasty was discussed in September of 2010. The total hip replacement was conducted on February 22, 2011. Claimant returned to work but was told that his restrictions could not be accommodated.
The deputy concluded that claimant's right hip osteoarthritis and need for hip replacement were not due to claimant's work, citing the opinions of Dr .Boulden and rejecting the opinions of Dr. Miller. The commissioner reversed on appeal, finding that claimant's duties at work were such that there had been an aggravation of his underlying health condition, based on the records of the doctors who had opined on the issue. The commissioner found permanent total disability. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The court also rejected defendants' claim that claimant's planned retirement precluded permanent total disability.
The court noted the deference provided the commissioner on factual matters, citing Pease and Mike Brooks. Defendants argued that because the commissioner had not discussed Dr. Munjal's contradictory opinions, the case must be remanded to the commissioner to reweigh the evidence. The court rejected this argument, finding that it was clear from the commissioner's decision that the opinions of all three experts had been considered. The Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that under McDowell v. Town of Clarksville, 241 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1976), the district court had excluded consideration of Dr. Munjal's opinions. The appellate court notes that the district court looked at the record without Dr. Munjal's opinions to determine whether there was substantial evidence of causation nonetheless. The court found that there was.
The court noted that if a condition is aggravated, accelerated, worsened or lighted up by the injury, claimant may recover and noted further that the standard of "material" aggravation or acceleration was the correct standard. The court found that substantial evidence supported the finding of permanent total disability.
On the question of the extent of disability, the court addressed defendants' contention that claimant had agreed when he visited his personal physician in October of 2010 that he planned to retire in March of 2011. The court, citing Second Injury Fund v. Nelson, 544 N.W.2d 258, 265-67 (Iowa 1995), rejected the reasoning that a person nearing the end of his normal work life should have his earning capacity reduced. The court also noted the ADM's characterization of the retirement as "voluntary" was "not without question." The court concluded that the determination that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
Comments
Post a Comment