Court of Appeals Affirms Ruling that Stipulated Work Injury Did Not Lead to Permanent Impairment

In Bahic v. Mercy Medical Center, No. 17-1374 (Iowa App. June 20, 2018), the commissioner had concluded that claimant, who had a stipulated work injury to her back, had not suffered a permanent impairment.  The commissioner's decision came in the wake of the deputy's decision, which had concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the back injury.  

Following the back injury, Dr. Boarini had concluded that claimant's injury was "extremely minimal."  Dr. Mendoza had found that the condition of claimant's back was such that she needed a fusion, which he performed.  Dr. Mendoza, however, concluded that the injury was not related to claimant's work. In reversing the deputy, the commissioner held that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement in February of 2014, before Dr. Mendoza had performed surgery.  The commissioner found Dr. Mendoza's opinions to be the most credible. 

In reviewing the commissioner's decision, the court noted that the commissioner's finding would be disturbed only if it was not supported by substantial evidence.  The court noted that the case was similar to Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Pease, where the court found that it was the commissioner's responsibility to determine which physicians were to be given credibility. The court affirmed that this credibility determination was within the "peculiar province" of the commissioner.

Claimant requested that the court find that the testimony of the experts relied on by the commissioner to be so flawed as to not constitute substantial evidence.  The court concluded that this was not a case where the records were "so impossible or absurd and self-contradictory that it should be deemed a nullity by the court."  The court also rejected claimant's argument that the case should have been remanded to determine whether claimant had a permanent injury at the time that she was found to have reached MMI by Dr. Boarini.   The court concluded claimant had not met her burden of proving permanent injury.

The court also rejected claimant's contention that the application of law to fact was irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable.  The court found that this was a substantial evidence argument in a different guise. The commissioner reviewed all the evidence, considered it, and accepted the opinions of Dr. Boarini and Dr. Mendoza over those of claimant's experts.  The commissioner's decision was affirmed.