Court of Appeals Affirms Finding Claimant Suffered a Mental Health Condition Arising Out of His Employment, Concludes That Claimant's Injuries are to be Determined Industrially

 Turner v. NCI Building Systems, No. 23-1003 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025)

Claimant was found to have suffered a mental health injury at work, but that injury was found not to be permanent.  The commissioner also concluded claimant had suffered injuries to his bilateral lower extremities, left shoulder and thoracic spine and awarded a 40% industrial disability. Claimant sought to have the report of a pain psychologist, provided two days after hearing, into evidence and this request was initially denied by the deputy, but allowed by the commissioner. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, denying both the employer's appeal and claimant's cross-appeal.

The Court notes first that challenging the agency's decision on the basis that the decision was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable was a "heavy lift." The Court considered the admission of the pain psychologist's decision and noted that the lateness of the report was due to the fact that defendants had denied authorization for the appointment originally before relenting and authorizing the appointment shortly before the hearing.  The Court finds that the admission of the report was not "clearly against reason and evidence." The Court rejected the argument that administrative rules prohibited the commissioner from leaving the record open.

Defendants argued that claimant's mental health problems were not caused by his work, pointing to the opinions of its expert that claimant had other mental health conditions.  Of course, claimant had evidence indicating that the mental health complaints were related to work and the Court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the commissioner.  The corollary of this finding was the conclusion of the Court that the finding that the mental health injury was not permanent was also supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant argued that healing period benefits should be awarded until the mental health issue was properly treated, but because claimant had not raised the issue before the deputy, it was found to be waived. Although claimant brought this issue up in a rehearing petition before the commissioner, rule 4.28(7) requires the claim to be presented to the deputy.

Defendants final argument was that claimant's industrial disability award should be lessened.  Defendants first argued that claimant's argument did not extend to the body as a whole, but because defendants had agreed claimant's injury was industrial in response to a request for admissions under IRCP 1.510, this issue failed "out of the gate." The argument that the award was excessive was rejected on a substantial evidence basis.

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