Court of Appeals Affirms 40% Industrial Award

 ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Moore, No. 21-0339 (Iowa App. May 25, 2022)

Claimant suffered a pop while twisting to lift a stack of boxes and felt immediate pain in his left hip.  Claimant reported his injury and subsequently went on vacation.  His pain continued and when he returned to work he was informed his injury was no longer considered work-related.  Claimant sought care on his own and was advised by his doctor to avoid activities that would aggravate his condition.  Claimant also developed back pain.  He received treatment in the form of medications, physical therapy and facet injections.

Following the hearing on his claim, the deputy found, based on the reports of claimant's doctor and Dr. Segal, that claimant had suffered a work-related injury.  Claimant was found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability.  The commissioner affirmed and the district court affirmed the commissioner based on substantial evidence.  

The Court of Appeals noted that the factual finding of causation was reviewed on a substantial evidence standard.  The industrial disability claim was considered based on whether the commissioner's finding was based on an irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact.  The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of causation and rejected the argument that the commissioner had not considered claimant's alleged pre-existing conditions.  Furthermore, the employer's characterization of the injury as "minor" was contradicted by the ongoing treatment received by claimant. The commissioner's finding that claimant was credible also bolstered the assertion that the work injury aggravated any pre-existing back condition.  The court declined to reweigh the medical determinations made by the doctors. 

On the industrial disability claim, defendants argued that claimant had no reduction in earnings or change in job duties.  The commissioner had credited Dr. Segal's finding that claimant had a 19% impairment and his continuing pain, both of which supported the award of industrial disability.  The court concluded that the 40% industrial disability determination was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable and that the determination was supported by substantial evidence.  The court accordingly affirmed the decision of the commissioner.