Court of Appeals Decides Kohlhaas, Redux
Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009), the case was remanded to the agency for a determination of whether claimant met the qualifications for review-reopening absent the "contemplation" standard. On review, the commissioner again decided against claimant, and the case was decided by the Court of Appeals on March 28, 2012. Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc., No. 11-1177 (Iowa App. March 28, 2012).
On appeal, Kohlhaas argued that the commissioner read the remand order from the Supreme Court too narrowly. The court noted that in order to prevail on review reopening, the claimant must demonstrate that following the original settlement, the claimant must demonstrate he suffered an impairment or lessening of earning capacity proximately caused by the original injury. Citing Simonson v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 588 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1999). The agency concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate increased disability since the settlement agreement, and the Court of Appeals agreed.
Claimant argued that he had demonstrated that his originally injury to the leg had changed because it resulted in a gait disturbance and a body as a whole injury. The court found that the agency's findings denying review-reopening were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency was not required to address every fact in the record or to describe how every argument was decided. According to the court, as long as the agency's thought process could be followed, this was sufficient.
Claimant had also argued that the decision of the agency had precluded his ability to argue that the character of his injury had changed. The court found that the res judicata principles discussed in Kohlhaas I indicated that the initial decision/settlement formed the baseline from which the agency must determine whether there has been an increase or change in the level of impairment. Because the court finds that the agency correctly applied the law on remand, the decision of the agency was affirmed.
On appeal, Kohlhaas argued that the commissioner read the remand order from the Supreme Court too narrowly. The court noted that in order to prevail on review reopening, the claimant must demonstrate that following the original settlement, the claimant must demonstrate he suffered an impairment or lessening of earning capacity proximately caused by the original injury. Citing Simonson v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 588 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1999). The agency concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate increased disability since the settlement agreement, and the Court of Appeals agreed.
Claimant argued that he had demonstrated that his originally injury to the leg had changed because it resulted in a gait disturbance and a body as a whole injury. The court found that the agency's findings denying review-reopening were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency was not required to address every fact in the record or to describe how every argument was decided. According to the court, as long as the agency's thought process could be followed, this was sufficient.
Claimant had also argued that the decision of the agency had precluded his ability to argue that the character of his injury had changed. The court found that the res judicata principles discussed in Kohlhaas I indicated that the initial decision/settlement formed the baseline from which the agency must determine whether there has been an increase or change in the level of impairment. Because the court finds that the agency correctly applied the law on remand, the decision of the agency was affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment