Court of Appeals Affirms Award of Penalty Benefits
In Bridgestone/Firestone v. Dalton, No. 15-0571 (Iowa App. Feb. 24, 2016) , claimant suffered an injury to his shoulder which was denied by the company. The agency found that claimant's injury had resulted in a 50% industrial disability and a penalty of $75,000.00 was assessed against the employer by the deputy. On appeal, the penalty award was reduced to $33,027.69. The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.
The court noted that factual issues were decided based on the substantial evidence standard, and that the application of law to facts was determined based on the "demanding 'irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable' standard of section 17A.19(10)(m)."
On the penalty issue, the court noted that Dr. Troll had found that because there was no specific injury, he could not relate his shoulder problems to work. Claimant subsequently saw Dr. Neff, who recommended surgery. The agency found that Dr. Troll's opinion was not a reasonable basis for the denial of the claim. Two other physicians had concluded that claimant's injury was related to his work, including Dr. Neff.
The court concluded that claimant had demonstrated a delay in payment of benefits "by the unreasonably long period of nine months." The employer had also failed to demonstrate a reasonable or probable cause for the delay. The court concluded that the commissioner's application of section 86.13 was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. Citing Pettengill v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC, 2015 WL 9450654 at *6 (Iowa App. 2016). The causation and industrial disability awards were also affirmed.
The court noted that factual issues were decided based on the substantial evidence standard, and that the application of law to facts was determined based on the "demanding 'irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable' standard of section 17A.19(10)(m)."
On the penalty issue, the court noted that Dr. Troll had found that because there was no specific injury, he could not relate his shoulder problems to work. Claimant subsequently saw Dr. Neff, who recommended surgery. The agency found that Dr. Troll's opinion was not a reasonable basis for the denial of the claim. Two other physicians had concluded that claimant's injury was related to his work, including Dr. Neff.
The court concluded that claimant had demonstrated a delay in payment of benefits "by the unreasonably long period of nine months." The employer had also failed to demonstrate a reasonable or probable cause for the delay. The court concluded that the commissioner's application of section 86.13 was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. Citing Pettengill v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC, 2015 WL 9450654 at *6 (Iowa App. 2016). The causation and industrial disability awards were also affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment