Court of Appeals Affirms 20% Industrial Disability Award for Back Injury

In ABF Freight v. Veenendal, No. 11-1862 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012), the court affirmed, on substantial evidence grounds, a finding that claimant's back problems arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in a 20% industrial disability.  The case demonstrates yet again that if a party loses before the commissioner, and there is evidence to support the decision, it is likely that the appellate courts will rule in favor of the party who prevailed at the commissioner level on substantial evidence grounds.

In Veenendal, there was evidence from Dr. Abernathey that the claim was not work related and evidence from Dr. Brady and Dr. Neiman that it was work-related, and the court found that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence.  The court also found that the 20% industrial disability finding was supported by substantial evidence. In light of the Pease decision, which was cited in Veenendal, reversals of the commissioner's decision will occur only rarely if there is some evidence to support the commissioner's decision on the facts.

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