Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Benefits on Substantial Evidence Grounds

 The deputy and commissioner found that claimant had failed to establish a new, permanent injury to her arm and claimant's case against the employer and Second Injury Fund was dismissed.  In Mahoney v. Robert Half International and Second Injury Fund of Iowa, No. 20-0868 (Iowa App. June 30, 2021), the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant had suffered an earlier injury to her right arm in 2006 as a result of an auto accident.  This accident resulted in surgery to the arm.  In 2015, claimant began working for Tax Act and alleged that she developed new problems in her arm.  She was diagnosed with tenosynovitis by Dr. Loth.  Dr. Sassman later found that claimant had a 3% impairment rating for the injury, which was found to be a new repetitive motion injury.  The deputy concluded, based on the testimony of the employer's representative, that claimant's work was not repetitive and found that claimant's injuries were a continuation of problems she had since the time of the automobile accident.  The commissioner and district court affirmed this ruling.

The Court of Appeals affirms, finding that the agency had considered Dr. Sassman's report, but could have concluded that Dr. Sassman was not provided with accurate facts regarding claimant's job description involving the degree of repetitive activity necessary.  Because the agency is responsible for determining the weight to be provided medical evidence. the decision to discredit Dr. Sassman's opinion was appropriate, according to the court.  The court also finds that there was support for the agency's determination that claimant's right arm injury was "not worked up independently."  The court also finds that there was substantial evidence for the conclusion that claimant consistently experienced symptoms and difficulties in her right wrist from the auto accident as late as 2012 and 2013.  Based on the findings that the commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the commissioner's decision was affirmed.