Court of Appeals Reverses District Court Decision, Affirms 50% Industrial Disability Award

In First Fleet Corp. v. Hannam, No. 14-1254 (Iowa App. July 9, 2015), the court affirmed the decision of the agency finding that claimant's shoulder injury and nervous system injury had resulted in a 50% industrial disability for claimant.  Claimant had suffered admitted injuries to his legs as a result of a hit and run accident while he was driving truck, and an IME (Dr. Creighton) demonstrated that there was a 3% rating as a result of a gait derangement, a 19% impairment from loss of motion in the right hip, 3% for trochanteric bursitis and 3% for a shoulder injury associated with the accident.  Restrictions of minimal walking and not lifting more than 30 pounds and not lifting anything overhead were imposed.  A DME by Dr. Neff indicated there was a 1% impairment as a result of skin change over the sensory distribution to the right lateral femoral cutaneous nerve.  No work restrictions were imposed.  Dr. Conte, who had treated claimant, found a 0% functional impairment.

The arbitration and appeal decisions found that claimant had work related injuries to his nervous system, hip and shoulder and a 50% industrial disability.  The district court affirmed the ruling with respect to the hip injury, but found that the shoulder and nervous system injuries were not supported by the record.  The district court also found that the commissioner did not provide enough analysis when awarding the 50% industrial disability and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the discretion of the workers' compensation commissioner.  The court found the agency had implicitly found that Dr. Creighton's IME was the most credible.  The court found that the district court erred in making its own determination of the weight to be given the various pieces of evidence and that the district court was not to reweigh the evidence.  The Court of Appeals also found that the nervous system injury extended beyond the leg and again found the district court had erred in making factual findings.  Finally, the court found that the 50% industrial disability award was supported by the record, noting that claimant had suffered an actual income loss of approximately 50% since the injury.  The decision of the agency was affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.

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