Court of Appeals Affirms Ruling Finding that Claimant's Injuries Were Related to Work and Conclusion Claimant was Permanently and Totally Disabled

 H.J. Heinz Co. v. Tilton, No. 24-0236 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2024)

In this action, which had previously been before the Court of Appeals twice, the Court affirms a decision finding that the date of discovery of the injury was April 15, 2013, that the filing of the action was timely and that claimant was permanently and totally disabled based on aggravations of her back and mental conditions.

Claimant had a long history of treatment for back problems, beginning in 2000, approximately a year after she began working for the employer.  She continued to treat for the injury throughout the years and in 2010 her chiropractor indicated that her disc bulges and bone spurs were permanent and could cause her to miss work, but also finding she was not currently incpacitated.  Claimant received a great deal of treatment in 2010 and left the employer on April 13, 2013 on disability.  At hearing, medical testimony indicated that claimant's work had been a substantial contributing factor to her back problems. At hearing, the deputy dismissed the petition, finding that claimant knew or should have known of her injuries in 2011 and did not file a petition until 2015.  The district court and subsequently Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the decisions of the agency were irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable. On remand, the agency found claimant should have known of her injury in February of 2010 and again dismissed the case.  The district court ad Court of Appeals again found the decision illogical and irrational and remanded to the agency.  On the second remand, the agency found that claimant could not have known onf the injury until April 15, 2013, and concluded claimant was permanently and totally disabled.

Defendants argued on appeal that the commissioner committed an error of law in not specifically including findings on claimant's credibility. The court rejects the argument that a specific finding of credibility must be made. Although the agency must determine credibility, there is no requirement to write the credibility findings into its decision.  The Court finds that the commissioner implicitly found claimant credible and the failure to include specific credibility findings in the remand decision was not error.

With respect to the discovery date of the injury, the Court rejects a bright line rule that an alteration in claimant's work (which occurred in 2011) did not necessarily mean that her work would be permanently affected.  The Court found not case law supporting "the assertion that accommodations for injury can serve as the sole basis for a finding of permanence."  The employer also argues that claimant should have known in 2010 that her injury was permanent, but as these arguments had already been denied twice by the Court, they were again rejected.  Finally, the Court rejected an argument that the date of discovery should be based on the date of an FMLA form signed by a doctor indicating that claimant should be given time off, finding that the form "did not necessarily provide persuasive value on whether an injury is permanent beyond the FMLA leave period being sought."  In this case, the doctor signing the form indicated that the injury would not be permanent.

The Court rejected the employer's claims concerning the cause/aggravation of the injuries and claimant's PTD status. Because this argument was premised on claimant's alleged lack of credibility, a subject previously addressed, this argument was also rejected.  The Court concludes that the reports of claimant's doctors was substantial evidence supporting the causation finding as well as finding claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  The Court rejects an argument that claimant's voluntary leaving employment defeated PTD status.

Finally, the Court affirms the finding that claimant was entitled to penalty benefits. The employer argued that the 2001 version of section 86.13 did not require a reasonable investigation into claimant's claims. But the Court notes that the language did require them to have a "reasonable or probable excuse" for delays in commencement or termination of benefits. The Court finds that the delays after receiving a medical opinion supporting claimant's entitlement to benefits, conveyance of false information and failure to be transparent with claimant, counsel or defendants' doctor "collectively provided substantial evidence for the Commissioner's determination that Tilton was entitled to penalty benefits."