Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Benefits on Substantial Evidence Grounds

In Arrowood v. Maytag, No. 1-445 (Iowa App. Aug. 10, 2011), the court affirmed the denial of benefits to claimant in the face of claimant's argument that the agency erred in not considering claimant's testimony.  Claimant argued that his injury was work-related, in the face of records from Dr. Boarini and Dr. Thurston that the claim was not related to Mr. Arrowood's work activities.  The agency accepted the opinions of Dr. Boarini and Dr. Thurston over that of claimant's doctors and his own testimony.  On substantial evidence grounds, the court affirms.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions October 2025 Flack v. Christensen Farms & Feedlots, Inc. , Nos. 20009913.01, 21000111.01 (App. Oct. 31, 2025) - Claimant alleged a permanent aggravation of a preexisting back condition as a result of stipulated work injuries.  The deputy concluded claimant failed to carry her burden of demonstrating a permanent aggravation. The commissioner affirmes without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Hogberg v. North American Beverage , No. 21013297.01 (App. Oct. 30, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate a mental injury and a permanent physical injury arising out of a stipulated work incident.  Claimant's IME was awarded (Christenson). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis.  6 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Levendusky v. A to Z Drying , No. 23700547.01 (Ap.. Oct. 22, 2025) - This case is very similar to Bell , below, with claimant ...
Read more

Court of Appeals Affirms Finding Claimant Suffered a Mental Health Condition Arising Out of His Employment, Concludes That Claimant's Injuries are to be Determined Industrially

  Turner v. NCI Building Systems , No. 23-1003 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant was found to have suffered a mental health injury at work, but that injury was found not to be permanent.  The commissioner also concluded claimant had suffered injuries to his bilateral lower extremities, left shoulder and thoracic spine and awarded a 40% industrial disability. Claimant sought to have the report of a pain psychologist, provided two days after hearing, into evidence and this request was initially denied by the deputy, but allowed by the commissioner. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, denying both the employer's appeal and claimant's cross-appeal. The Court notes first that challenging the agency's decision on the basis that the decision was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable was a "heavy lift." The Court considered the admission of the pain psychologist's decision and noted that the lateness of the report was due to the fact ...
Read more

Court of Appeals Affirms Sanction on Claimant for Service of Subpoena

  Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. , No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction. The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.   The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently soug...
Read more