Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Additional Benefits Against the Fund on Review Reopening, Assessment of Costs Against Claimant
In Wehde v. Georgia Pacific and Second Injury Fund, No. 15-0045 (Iowa App. No. 15-0045), the Court of Appeals addressed an issue where claimant had filed an original action against the employer and Fund and had prevailed and later filed a review reopening action. In this action, claimant prevailed against the employer, and received an additional award of 8% for her left leg, but no additional impairment for her right leg and no additional industrial disability benefits from the Fund. The agency concluded that there was an increased loss of earning capacity as a result of her additional loss of use to the left knee. The agency assessed the costs for the left leg to the employer, ordered shared costs for the right leg, and costs relating to the loss of earning capacity were assessed to claimant. The district court affirmed and the case was appealed.
The Court of Appeals concluded that although the treating doctor had not imposed restrictions in the original action, the IME doctor had done so and the agency had taken this into account in determining claimant's loss of earning capacity. The treating physician's restrictions at the time of the review-reopening case were similar to those of the IME physician in the original case. The court found that the facts of the case supported a conclusion that claimant was as physically capable in August of 2013 as she had been in February of 2010. The court also rejected claimant's allegation that a vocational report demonstrated additional loss of earning capacity. This was based on the fact that the vocational expert's conclusions were based on limitations that were largely similar to the ones discussed by the agency at the time of the original decision.
The court of appeals also concluded that claimant's loss of her job was because of a plant closure and not because of any additional restrictions. In assessing the ultimate finding of industrial disability, the court concluded that the agency's decision was not illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.
On the costs issue, the court simply states that since the agency was justified in denying an additional award against the Fund, there was no abuse of discretion in the agency's assessment of costs to claimant.
The Court of Appeals concluded that although the treating doctor had not imposed restrictions in the original action, the IME doctor had done so and the agency had taken this into account in determining claimant's loss of earning capacity. The treating physician's restrictions at the time of the review-reopening case were similar to those of the IME physician in the original case. The court found that the facts of the case supported a conclusion that claimant was as physically capable in August of 2013 as she had been in February of 2010. The court also rejected claimant's allegation that a vocational report demonstrated additional loss of earning capacity. This was based on the fact that the vocational expert's conclusions were based on limitations that were largely similar to the ones discussed by the agency at the time of the original decision.
The court of appeals also concluded that claimant's loss of her job was because of a plant closure and not because of any additional restrictions. In assessing the ultimate finding of industrial disability, the court concluded that the agency's decision was not illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.
On the costs issue, the court simply states that since the agency was justified in denying an additional award against the Fund, there was no abuse of discretion in the agency's assessment of costs to claimant.
Comments
Post a Comment