Court of Appeals Affirms Causation Decision on Substantial Evidence Grounds and Surveillance Video

Claimant alleged that he suffered an injury to his knee while gassing up his truck and argues that the commissioner ignored uncontested expert testimony in concluding that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  In Swanson v. A.V. Transportation, No. 17-1127 (Iowa App. May 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirms the denial of benefits on substantial evidence grounds.

Claimant was an over the road truck driver, who was gassing up his truck on ice covered ground when he slipped, did the splits and felt pain in his right knee.  Claimant did not initially report the injury, but later reported it, indicating this had happened on February 14.  He later amended that to February 15, and finally to February 7.  The claim was initially accepted and an MRI showed a meniscal tear.  The knee was repaired.  An IME, by Dr. Milas found that the knee injury resulted from work related activities, and was based on claimant's account of the injury.

At hearing, claimant and two of the employer's employees testified.  A surveillance video on the day of the alleged incident showed claimant getting into and out of his truck without incident.  Based on the video, the deputy and then the commissioner concluded that claimant's injury had not arisen out of and in the course of employment.  The district court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.

Before the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the agency did not give proper weight to claimant's testimony or the medical opinions from his treating physicians.  The court rejected this contention, finding that the medical evidence did not provide a reliable account of the cause, location or date of the accident because it was based on claimant's own account, which was contradicted by the surveillance video.  That video showed no difficulties with claimant getting into and out of the truck and also showed puddles of water, not ice.  The court affirms on substantial evidence grounds.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions April 2024 Ramirez Ruiz v. Hy-Vee, Inc. , No. 22004416.01 (App. April 19, 2024) - Claimant suffered an injury to the left foot which the deputy found had extended into the body as a whole.  A 45% industrial disability was awarded.  The deputy agreed to claimant's rate and awarded payment of healing period, temporary partial and penalty benefits.  The penalty was for the underpayment of benefits (Humphrey, in a 58 page decision). On appeal, the commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy without additional analysis.  4 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. , No. 21-14161.02 (App. April 10, 2024) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate an injury arising out of employment.  The deputy also concluded that claimant failed to demonstrate a permanent disability (Gerrish-Lampe). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration t
Read more