Posts

Showing posts with the label agency discretion

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 agen...

Court of Appeals Rejects Finding of Depression from Family Doctor, Finds that Admission of Late Report was not Prejudicial

In Bos v. Climate Engineers , No. 17-0159 (Iowa App. Nov. 22, 2017), the commissioner had concluded that claimant did not have a claim for depression following a shoulder injury and rejected the report of claimant's family physician that the depression was connected to the underlying injury.  The commissioner also allowed the admission of a vocational report from defendants even though the expert had not been named in a timely fashion and had not been produced until 18 days before hearing.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's action with respect to the doctor's findings, but rejected the admission of the late vocational report and remanded to the agency for further opinion. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals.  On the evidentiary issue, the court found that even though the opinion of the family doctor had been unrebutted, the commissioner was within his rights to reject that evidence.  The commissioner had found that it had been several month...