« Mental-Mental Injury |
Main Blog Page
| Substantial Evidence-Weighing Of Evidence- Use Of First Report Of Injury »
Tyson Foods, Inc. vs Migdahia Hedlund, (Iowa App. Ct. January 18, 2007)
Hedlund alleged a work injury to her arms, shoulder and neck. Hedlund was seen by Dr. Timothy Schurman who diagnosed her with inflammatory arthritis and stated her condition had been materially aggravated by the work place. Dr. Schurman recommended that she be seen by a rheumatologist. Tyson sought a second opinion from Dr. Delwin Quenzer. Hedlund thought that Tyson was trying to switch care from Schwurman to Quenzer. She filed a petition for alternate medical care. At the alternate care hearing Tyson stated it accepted liability on her claim. The parties straightened out the misunderstanding about the purpose of the appointment with Dr. Quenzer and the petition was dismissed.
Tyson obtained a second opinion from Dr. Donnal Bahls who gave the opinion that Hedlund had rheumatoid arthritis and this was not a work related condition. Because Tyson had not referred Hedlund to a rheumatologist she filed a new request for alternate medical care. At the second proceeding Tyson denied liability for Hedlund’s injuries based on Dr. Bahl’s opinion. A deputy commissioner determined that Tyson Foods was bound by its admission in the first alternate care proceeding, granted alternate medical care and ordered Tyson to schedule a rheumatology consultation. Tyson appealed to the district court which affirmed under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Tyson further appealed and the court of appeal rejected issue preclusion but affirmed on the basis of judicial estoppel based on the Winnebago Industries and Sentry Insurance vs Haverly, case discussed above.
Posted by Richard G. Book on May 1, 2007 6:23 AM
|
Permalink
