Court of Appeals Reverses District Court, Awards Benefits for Bilateral Shoulder Injuries

Mercy Medical Center v. Lund, No. 21-0523 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022)

Claimant worked at a job at Mercy Medical Center that required assembling materials for surgery, which required heavy work exerting up to 65 pounds of push/pull force and the lifting of up to 50 pounds sometimes and 40 pounds frequently.  While lifting trays over her head, she felt pain in the right side of her neck and both shoulders felt tight and sore.  She was diagnosed with bilateral shoulder impingement by Dr. Harbach.  His notes indicated that claimant hurt after performing all of her work duties.  Claimant was also seen by an ARNP who noted that claimant was injured lifting surgical pans.  Dr. Aviles diagnosed a full thickness rotator cuff tear and recommended surgery.  He later indicated that he did not believe the rotator cuff tear resulted from work.  Further medical care from the employer was denied.

Dr. Davick saw claimant and provided treatment.  Claimant's counsel summarized a meeting with Dr. Davick, in which he indicated that claimant's work was a substantial and material causative factor in both the right and left rotator cuff tears. Dr. Aviles issued a letter indicating that claimant's injury was chronic and her work was not considered a cause for the rotator cuff tear.  In his deposition, he indicated that because claimant did not report an acute trauma to him, he did not believe her injury was work-related.  Evidence was presented at hearing that claimant could handle 100 trays during the shift and that the pans weighed no more than 25-27 pounds.  The deputy concluded, based on this evidence that the bilateral shoulder injuries resulted from work.  The commissioner affirmed, noting that there was nothing in claimant's day to day life that placed similar stresses on her shoulders.  He found Dr. Davick's opinion to be most consistent with claimant's consistent testimony and her work duties.

The district court reversed the agency decision.  The court found that Dr. Davick's opinion was lacking because he equated "consistency with probability."  The district court read Dr. Davick's opinion to mean the relationship between the work activity and the rotator cuff tears was only a possibility.  

The Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the district court.  The COA notes that under the substantial evidence standard, the question is whether the record, taken as a whole, supports the findings that were actually made.  The court also notes that the commissioner is responsible for determining the weight to be given expert testimony.  In this case, the commissioner considered the competing opinions and ultimately found Dr. Davick's opinion to be most consistent with Lund's testimony and her work duties.  The commissioner's decision was reinstated.