Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Review Reopening Claim

 Barry v. John Deere Dubuque Works, No. 22-1000 (Iowa App. May 24, 2023)

Claimant suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and was awarded an 11% whole person impairment rating following hearing.  Claimant subsequently developed additional problems with his bilateral hands and arms and sought review reopening based on changes in physical condition.  Dr. Mathew, who conducted an IME on the review reopening, concluded that claimant had additional permanent impairment and had also developed shoulder difficulties as a result of his work activities.  Additional restrictions were also imposed.  The agency concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a physical change in condition sufficient to justify additional benefits and the district court affirmed this holding.  The agency concluded that Dr. Mathew’s report was not credible because it was based on incorrect sections of the AMA Guides.

The Court concluded that the agency had not abused its discretion in discrediting Dr. Mathew’s report, finding that claimant’s descriptions of his condition was quite similar at both hearings, and that the medical evidence apart from Dr. Mathew’s report suggested that his condition had not changed.  The Court found no abuse of discretion in the rejection of Dr. Mathew’s report. Claimant also argued that the agency erred under 85.34(2)(x) in questioning the credibility of Dr. Mathew and that the agency abused its discretion in using theAMA Guides. The Court finds that there was little in the way of explanation for Dr. Mathew’s application of the Guides, particularly in contrast to the use of the Guides by claimant’s first IME doctor, Dr. Sassman. The Court finds that the agency did not abuse its discretion in applying the Guides.in determining the extent of loss or percent of impairment. The Court concluded that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence and also found that claimant’s shoulder injury was a separate injury that should be pursued in a separate proceeding.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions April 2024 Burden v. United Parcel Service , No. 21013153.01 (App. April 24, 2024) - Claimant was found credible by the deputy, who concluded claimant had suffered a left knee injury as well as a neck injury.  Because claimant continued to work for more wages than at the time of the injury, the claim was considered functionally and claimant found to have a 27% whole body impairment (Walsh). Defendants argued that claimant had not sustained a compensable neck injury on appeal and urged that Dr. Taylor's IME should not have been credited over claimant's treating physician.  The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy.  The commissioner noted that claimant had stated he had symptoms that were indicative of cervical spine involvement early in the injury process.  The commissioner noted that the treating neurosurgeon had clearly identified a cervical injury and that this bolstered the credibility of Dr. Taylor's IME. 5 m
Read more