Court of Appeals Affirms Permanent Total Disability, Rate Case on Substantial Evidence Grounds
Premium Transportation Staffing, Inc. v. Bowers, No. 15-0378 (Iowa App. Oct. 14, 2015), addressed issues of permanent total disability and computation of rate in a case where claimant alleged that per diem payments should be included in the rate. The court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds, noting that the court's review of agency action was "severely circumscribed."
On the permanent total disability question, the court noted that the agency had given greater weight to two physicians, Dr. Sedlacek and Dr. Mathew. The court noted that there was substantial evidence to support this decision and affirmed.
On the more interesting issue of inclusion of per diem in calculating the rate, the claimant had testified that he spent only $12.00 per day for food and the remainder of the $52,00 per diem was kept by claimant. This was said to be uncontroverted in the record. The deputy concluded that only $12.00 was a reimbursement for expenses under section 85.61(3) and that the remaining $40.00 was rightfully included in determining claimant's rate. The district court affirmed. The Court of Appeals concluded that, giving due deference to the commissioner's findings of fact, the $40.00 was appropriately included in the weight, affirming the decision of the district court without further comment. Bowers is potentially an important case in determining rate, as many employees do not routinely spend the entire per diem on expenses.
On the permanent total disability question, the court noted that the agency had given greater weight to two physicians, Dr. Sedlacek and Dr. Mathew. The court noted that there was substantial evidence to support this decision and affirmed.
On the more interesting issue of inclusion of per diem in calculating the rate, the claimant had testified that he spent only $12.00 per day for food and the remainder of the $52,00 per diem was kept by claimant. This was said to be uncontroverted in the record. The deputy concluded that only $12.00 was a reimbursement for expenses under section 85.61(3) and that the remaining $40.00 was rightfully included in determining claimant's rate. The district court affirmed. The Court of Appeals concluded that, giving due deference to the commissioner's findings of fact, the $40.00 was appropriately included in the weight, affirming the decision of the district court without further comment. Bowers is potentially an important case in determining rate, as many employees do not routinely spend the entire per diem on expenses.
Comments
Post a Comment