Court of Appeals Concludes Commissioner Did Not Improperly Use Agency Discretion in Determining Impairment Rating for Distal Clavicle Excision

 Klein v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 25-0458 (Iowa App. Jan. 7, 2026)

The fighting issue in this case is whether a distal clavicle excision is to be rated in full or to be reduced based on a modifier.  In the case, claimant's IME doctor concluded the modifier did not apply under the Guides.  Defendant's doctor did not rate the distal clavicle excision at all, rating the shoulder only on the basis of loss of motion.  The agency concluded that in an earlier decision (Jay v. Archer Skid Loader Service), the modifier had been used even though no doctor had used this.  In that case, according to Jay, it was the agency's duty to calculate ratings in accordance with the AMA Guidelines.  In this case, the commissioner found that the agency must determine whether the rating was in compliance with the AMA Guides.  The District Court affirmed the decision of the agency, finding that the agency's interpretation of the Guides did not qualify as prohibited usage of agency expertise.  The district court also concluded that the agency did not improperly utilize official notice of a different decision (Jay) but instead relied on the AMA Guides.  The court also found that statutory rules regarding judicial notice were only applicable to adjudicative facts, not legislative or other non-adjudicative facts.

On appeal, the Court affirms.  The Court first notes that 85.34(2)(x) required that determining a percentage of functional impairment was to be determined solely by using the AMA Guides. The Court finds that the language of 85.34(2)(x) did not specifically address who must interpret the Guides.  In the Court's opinion, "the Commissioner simply corrected Dr. Taylor's expert opinion to conform with the Guides and did not substitute the opinion with agency expertise." Note that this would seem to conclude that the only "correct" opinion of the Guides was that the modifier should be applied and there was no factual evidence in this case to support that interpretation.  This was not a case in which one doctor applied the modifier and one did not. The Court finds no error in the rejection of Dr. Taylor's opinion and "application of the Guides as required by statute."

On the judicial notice issue, the Court agrees with the district court that rules requiring judicial notice apply only to adjudicative facts and the Guides and the Jay decision do not qualify as such facts.  According to the Court, it would be expected that the commissoiner would adhere to statutory requirement and guidance from previous decisions to weight the evidence. Note that in this decision, unlike in the December COA decision in Koeller, there was no dissent filed in the case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions December 2025 Okanovic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 22011730.01 (App. Dec 22, 2025) - Claimant was found to have sustained a cumulative injury to his neck, bilateral shoulders and bilateral carpal tunnel.  Defendant's notice claim was rejected.  A running healing period was awarded.  Past medical expenses were awarded, as was claimant's IME (Walsh).  The commissioner affirms with additional analysis. The commissioner concurs with the deputy that Dr. Crites' findings were the most credible.  The commissioner finds the deputy's decision correctly placed the burden of proving his injury on claimant. the commissioner rejected the findings of Dr. Mooney that the injury did not arise out of claimant's work. The commissioner finds that claimant should have known that his injuries were present and work related by November 2021. Claimant specifically reported his condition and claimant was taken off his normal job in the No...
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