Court of Appeals Affirms Finding That Claimant's Shoulder Injury Did Not Result in Permanent Disability

Claimant was found to have met her burden of demonstrating that she suffered a work related injury to her shoulder, but the agency concluded that she did not establish permanent total disability.  Merrick v. Crestridge, Inc., No. 17-0745 (Iowa App. March 21, 2018).  On appeal, claimant contends that the agency's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the agency misapplied the law to the facts.

Claimant suffered a shoulder injury and the doctors initially believed that the injury had caused capsulitis.  She was placed on light duty work following the injury and was provided with injection therapy, which was helpful.  She was released to regular duty work, but did not return to work for the employer. The treating doctor concluded there was no permanent functional impairment and she was provided a 0% rating.  Dr. Kreiter, who performed an IME, found that claimant had a 13% BAW rating as a result of shoulder instability and a possible labral tear.  He believed that an MRI and permanent physical restrictions were necessary.

An MRI showed no evidence of tears in the shoulder and the treating doctor found no evidence of instability.  He found that claimant's current complaints were not due to her work injury and disagreed with Dr. Kreiter's assessment.  He again found there was no permanent impairment.

The agency relied on the treating doctor over Dr. Kreiter.  Although claimant argues before the court that the agency ignored the evidence of Dr. Kreiter, the court concludes that the agency provided specific reasons why it found Dr. Hussain's opinion to be more credible and Dr. Kreiter's less so.  Because the agency considered this evidence, the court concluded the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence.  The court also concluded that lay testimony was considered and that the agency's decision on this score was supported by substantial evidence.  The court concluded that the application of the law to the facts was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions