Court of Appeals Affirms PTD Award on Substantial Evidence Grounds

XPO Logistics v. Ivester, No. 23-1357 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2024)

Claimant was found to have sustained permanent total disability from a back injury affecting both his left and right side.  Although defendants admitted that claimant had sustained an injury to his left back, they argued that the symptoms from the left-sided back injury had largely abated and claimant was not entitled to PTD based only on his symptoms to the left back.  Defendants argued that the symptoms to the left back, which arose following surgery to his left back, were not related to his work.  In finding permanent total disability, the deputy and commissioner relied on the unrefuted opinions of two experts, Dr. Mathew and Dr. Segal, that the "ongoing low back and lower extremity symptoms, including his right-side symptoms, are related to the work injury of June 8, 2016."

On appeal, the employer argued that since the surgery was to the left side, symptoms on the right side with no immediate onset could not be causally related to the injury.  The employer argues that because claimant went for over a year without treatment for the right-sided symptoms, the agency's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.  In rejecting this claim, the COA notes that the employee sought treatment for the right-sided injury "only to be rebuffed by XPO and its insurance carrier."  Because the evidence supported the findings made by the agency, substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner. 

The employer also argues that claimant had not reached MMI.  The Court finds that the shots claimant was receiving were not inconsistent with a finding of MMI.  The Court also concluded that a fusion surgery that might be performed was found by the neurosurgeon to be of no benefit to the employee.  Finally, the recommendation for a spinal cord stimulator was one that had not been recommended.  The commissioner's finding on MMI was affirmed, as was the award of PTD benefits.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

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 support the st
Read more