Court of Appeals Affirms Reversal of Agency Denial of Benefits

In Cozad v. Russell Corp., No. 1-864 (Iowa App. Jan. 19, 2012), the Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision affirming a decision of the district court, which had reversed the agency action denying benefits.  The remarkable aspect of this decision is the fact that Cozad was decided only weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Pease, in which the court had indicated its reaffirmance of the importance of substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases.

Cozad involved a fairly straightforward back injury, in which the claimant reported an acute injury at work.  She had previously had a significant history of back problems, but all of the doctors who opined on the issue of causation found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and caused a permanent impairment.  The agency found that claimant had suffered only a temporary impairment as a result of the injury.  The decision was based on the fact that the doctors who opined on causation were not fully aware of the past history of back problems.

The district court and court of appeals reversed, finding that this was not a battle of the experts as in Pease because there was no expert testimony finding that claimant's injury did not lead to a permanent impairment.  The court indicated that if the commissioner rejects uncontroverted medical testimony, he must do so with specificity.  The court also noted that it was reluctant to allow the rejection of medical testimony which was the only evidence presented.  Although two of the doctors (Boulden and Nelson) gave opinions only as to the possibility of causation, Dr. Palit clearly found that causation and permanency had been established.  There was said to be no evidence that Dr. Palit was not aware of the severity of claimant's earlier impairment.  Based on these factors, the decision of the commissioner was reversed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Iowa Supreme Court Concludes Vascular Injuries are not Per Se Whole Body Injuries for Fund Purposes; Holds that a Sequella Injury to the Body As. Whole Does Not Automatically Preclude Fund Benefits

  Delaney v. Second Injury Fund , No. 23-0182 ((Iowa May 10, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury to her left leg and 33 years later suffered an injury to her right leg. Following surgery on the right leg, claimant developed lymphedema. She filed for benefits against the Fund and the commissioner concluded that because lymphedema was an unscheduled injury, claimant was not entitled to benefits against the Fund under 85.64. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that even if a second injury resulted in a sequella body as a whole injury, claimant was still entitled to consideration of the second injury under 85.64. The Supreme Court first concludes that the agency erred in concluding that a per se rule for vascular injuries that concluded that such injuries precluded an action against the Fund was erroneous.The Court rejects the reliance of the agency on Blacksmith v. All-American , finding that Blacksmith  did not suppo...
Read more

Court of Appeals Holds that Injuries to Two Shoulders Are Not to be Considered Industrially Under 85.34(2)(v)

Nordstrom v. Carmer , No. 23-1423 (Iowa App. May 8, 2024) Claimant suffered an accepted injury to her right shoulder in August of 2018. She subsequently developed pain in her left shoulder due to overcompensating for her right shoulder injury with her other arm. Claimant's IME physician opined that the left shoulder injury was due to overcompensation due to the right shoulder injury while defendants' doctor indicated that the left shoulder injury was due to rheumatoid arthritis and was not work-related.  The commissioner concluded that both shoulder injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and found that the injuries should be treated as unscheduled under 85.34(2)(v).  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissoiner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first concludes that the report of Dr. Segal, claimant's IME doctor, was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that the decision concerning medical causation was essentially within the do...
Read more

Court of Appeals Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal as Moot

H.D. Supply Management v. Smith , No. 23-1656 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2024) In this interlocutory appeal, the parties requested the Court to decide whether a stay of a workers' compensation award was appropriate.  Claimant had filed a request for judgment under 86.42 following the commissioner's finding of permanent total disability.  Defendants moved to stay enforcement, despite the fact they had failed to post a bond in a timely manner.  Ultimately, the district court stayed the order, finding that claimant would  not be prejudiced despite the late posting of the bond. While the appeal was pending, the underlying claim was reversed and remanded to the commissioner (the underlying issue in the case was whether a combined arm and shoulder injury should be treated industrially, which the Supreme Court answered in the negative in Bridgestone Americas v. Anderson , 4 N.W.3d 676 (Iowa 2024). The parties argued that the case was not moot, given the fact that some benefits wo...
Read more