Court of Appeals Rejects Employer's Review-Reopening Challenge
Defendants in O'Reilly Auto Parts v. Kuder, No. 15-0890 (Iowa App. Sept. 14, 2016), filed an appeal of the commissioner's decision refusing to reopen a permanent total disability award. Defendants claimed that the commissioner committed legal error when considering whether Kuder's economic circumstances had changed, applied an improper burden of proof and reached his decision without support of substantial evidence.
Defendants had filed the review reopening action within one month of the appeal decision finding permanent total disability. Claimant was working part time at the time of the decision granting PTD benefits, but later lost that job when he moved to a smaller community. Defendants' vocational expert opined that claimant, who had a shoulder injury, had an industrial loss, but that there were many jobs for which claimant was qualified, even with restrictions. The deputy found that claimant was just as disabled as he was at the time of the original arbitration hearing. The commissioner affirmed, finding that there was no significant physical or economic change from the prior finding.
Defendants first argued that the commissioner erred in considering the job market in rural Iowa, where claimant had moved following the initial hearing. The court rejected this argument, finding that claimant's conditions remained the same following the initial hearing and found that the employer's failure to prove that claimant's work capacity had increased doomed their argument.
The court next rejected defendants' argument that once an employer had demonstated "partial work capacity", the burden of production should shift to the employee to demonstrate that work was unavailable. The court concluded that the defendants, even assuming the correctness of the burden shifting argument, had failed to demonstrate that claimant's work capacity had improved.
Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency. The court found that credibility and claimant's testimony was a factor in determining whether substantial evidence supported the decision and rejected defendants' argument.
Defendants had filed the review reopening action within one month of the appeal decision finding permanent total disability. Claimant was working part time at the time of the decision granting PTD benefits, but later lost that job when he moved to a smaller community. Defendants' vocational expert opined that claimant, who had a shoulder injury, had an industrial loss, but that there were many jobs for which claimant was qualified, even with restrictions. The deputy found that claimant was just as disabled as he was at the time of the original arbitration hearing. The commissioner affirmed, finding that there was no significant physical or economic change from the prior finding.
Defendants first argued that the commissioner erred in considering the job market in rural Iowa, where claimant had moved following the initial hearing. The court rejected this argument, finding that claimant's conditions remained the same following the initial hearing and found that the employer's failure to prove that claimant's work capacity had increased doomed their argument.
The court next rejected defendants' argument that once an employer had demonstated "partial work capacity", the burden of production should shift to the employee to demonstrate that work was unavailable. The court concluded that the defendants, even assuming the correctness of the burden shifting argument, had failed to demonstrate that claimant's work capacity had improved.
Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency. The court found that credibility and claimant's testimony was a factor in determining whether substantial evidence supported the decision and rejected defendants' argument.
Comments
Post a Comment