Court of Appeals Affirms Permanent Total Award on Substantial Evidence Grounds

 Regional Care Hospital Partners, Inc. v. Marrs No. 22-0959 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023)

This action, previously before the Court Regional Care Hosp. Part., Inc. v. Marrs, No. 19-2138 (Iowa App. Feb. 17, 2021) was a decision by the commissioner finding claimant had suffered a permanent total disability.  Defendants argued that because a FCE had placed claimant in the light work category, she was not permanently and totally disabled.  That FCE, however, had also indicated that claimant should limit sitting and standing to a rare basis, 1-5% of an 8 hour day.  Claimant had also testified that she spent most of the day laying down.  Defendants also aruged that a vocational report had found that jobs were available for claimant and claimant argues that the VE never met with her and that she could not perform the jobs listed by the VE.  Based on this, the deputy concluded claimant had an 80% industrial disability.  The commissioner awarded permanent and total disability benefits, finding that it was unclear how claimant could perform any of the VE's jobs "while having to lay down for the vast majority of the day."

On appeal, the Court noted that although claimant was generally in the light work category, she had to limit her activities to 1-5% of the workday.  The FCE was found to track the testimony of claimant, which had been found credible.  Substantial evidence was found to support the scope of the injury.  The application of law to facts was found not to be illogical or irrational for largely the same reasons.  The Court specifically a rejected an argument by the employer that claimant was required to have vocational expert testimony to rebut the VE testimony.  The court notes that "lay testimony is relevant when determining the extent of claimant's injuries."  The commissioner was responsible for determining the weight to be given expert testimony and his weighting of the evidence was not illogical or irrational.  The Court also found that although a PTD award generally required a claimant to conduct a good faith job search, this was not necessary "if there was substantial evidence the search would be futile."  The PTD award was affirmed.