Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Permanency Benefits on Substantial Evidence Grounds

 Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc., No. 24-1991 (Iowa App. Oct. 1 2025)

Claimant suffered an alleged work injury.  Prior to this injury, claimant had a lengthy history of injury, which had resulted in a 20 pound lifting restriction prior to the time he began working for the employer. In his position with the employer, claimant was required to lift between 25 and 50 pounds.  Claimant tripped while at work, fell to the cemet and hit his head.  He claimed injuries to his low back, leg and right ankle.  He was diagnosed with right sided sciatic radicular pain and lumbago with sciatica.  A CT scan desmonstrated severe degenerative disc disease.  Surgery was recommended by the surgeon chosen by the employer who related the surgery to claimant's work injury.

A DME found that claimant's proposed back surgery was not related to the work injury, but to claimant's underlying conditions. The DME concluded claimant had back strain, with no permanent impairment. Claimant's treqting physician continued to recommend surgery, which was performed by the surgeon. The deputy found claimant had not demonstrated a permanent injury and this finding was affirmed by the commissioner.

Claimant first argues on appeal that the agency did not consider claimant's argument that legal error was committed because the opinionss of the treating surgeon were "disclaimed" by the agency. The court notes that although this issue was raised before the commissioner, but was not specifically addressed by the commissioner. Claimant, however, did not raise the issue on a motion for rehearing and the court concludes that because no rehearing was requested, the issue was not preserved for review under 17A.16(2). Because claimant had the opportunity to preserve the issue for review via a rehearing petition but did not do so, the issue was waived.

On the substantial evidence issue, the court rejected claimant's argument of the weight to be give to the opinion of the DME doctor (Igram). The court finds the deputy fully diiscussed why she agreed with the opinion of Dr. Igram and concluded that this opinion was of greater weight.  He also reviewed claimant's prior medical history.  Because of this opinion, the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence and was affirmed by the court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions October 2025 Flack v. Christensen Farms & Feedlots, Inc. , Nos. 20009913.01, 21000111.01 (App. Oct. 31, 2025) - Claimant alleged a permanent aggravation of a preexisting back condition as a result of stipulated work injuries.  The deputy concluded claimant failed to carry her burden of demonstrating a permanent aggravation. The commissioner affirmes without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Hogberg v. North American Beverage , No. 21013297.01 (App. Oct. 30, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate a mental injury and a permanent physical injury arising out of a stipulated work incident.  Claimant's IME was awarded (Christenson). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis.  6 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Levendusky v. A to Z Drying , No. 23700547.01 (Ap.. Oct. 22, 2025) - This case is very similar to Bell , below, with claimant ...
Read more

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 ...
Read more

Court of Appeals Affirms Sanction on Claimant for Service of Subpoena

  Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. , No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction. The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.   The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently soug...
Read more