Court of Appeals Affirms Permanent Total Disability Award on Substantial Evidence Grounds

In H.J. Heating and Cooling v. Dahlen, No. 14-1100 (Iowa App. June 10, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner finding that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  The fighting issue in the case was whether the unrebutted testimony of an electrician hired by defendants which indicated it was impossible for claimant to be shocked in the manner he indicated was to be credited.  The commissioner discredited that testimony and found permanent total disability.

Claimant was working for a heating and cooling company and was walking outside through tall wet grass and plants when he touched metal and testified he was shocked.  This caused him to fall and break a window well cover and aggravated an underlying back condition.  The agency concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.

At hearing, the employer presented the testimony of a master electrician that it was not possible for claimant to have been shocked by the air conditioning unit, and thus the fall was not related to this incident and claimant did not have an injury arising out of his employment.  Claimant presented testimony that claimant's behavior after the injury was consistent with being shocked, but did not present expert testimony concerning the possible of being shocked in such a situation.  In rejecting the employer's contention, the commissioner noted the electrician's testimony was "highly suspect" because the inspection occurred three years after the fact, a new furnace had been installed since the date of injury, an addition had been put on the house causing changes to the breaker box and the electrician had not talked with any of the workers to see what alterations they had made.

The Court of Appeals deferred to the commissioner as the finder of fact, and noted that the commissioner had provided cogent reasons to reject the employer's expert opinion.  The court also concluded that the finding that claimant was permanently and totally disabled was supported by substantial evidence.  The treating doctor was not optimistic about claimant's ability to return to work and this was supported by the opinion of a vocational expert.  The court affirmed without further opinion, as the findings of the commissioner were supported by substantial evidence.