« Judicial Estoppel – Alternate Care Hearing |
Main Blog Page
| Specific Performance Of Settlement Agreement »
John Arndt vs City of LeClaire and Highland Insurance Group, 728 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 2007)
The commissioner found that Arndt’s injuries not to be work related. On judicial review the district court reversed the decision of the commissioner finding substantial evidence did not support the commissioner’s decision. The court of appeals affirmed. On further review the Supreme Court reversed finding substantial evidence to support the decision of the commissioner.
Arndt alleged that while at work on June 14, 2001 while climbing onto a road grader, he slipped on some grease and fell backward. He claimed that while attempting to break his fall he twisted his knee and popped his shoulder. The injury was not witnessed but Arndt claimed that he went back to the garage and told a co-employee. Arndt alleged that he told his supervisor about the injury the next day who told him to go see a doctor but Arndt said he did not want to see a doctor at that time but wanted to wait it out and see if it was a little sprain. A first report of injury was not filled out at that time.
Arndt had an appointment with a chiropractor on June 28th that he had seen before. He told the chiropractor that he had twisted his knee a month before. Arndt did not seek any additional treatment until October when he began to see the chiropractor more regularly. He reported right knee and right shoulder pain on his October 1st visit.
On October 25, 2001 Arndt saw an orthopedic surgeon. On a medical history form he indicated that private insurance would pay for his treatment, put a question mark on the line provided fro the patient to indicate the date of the accident and gave a history of slipping off a ladder at home twisting his knee and injuring his shoulder.
The first report of injury had been admitted into evidence for the limited purpose allowed by Iowa Code section 86.11. (notice) The injury which was not witnessed was reported to the employer the day after the claimant claimed he was injured. The court of appeals found that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the commissioner’s decision. The court of appeals reasoned that to affirm the commissioner they would have to ignore the date on which the employee notified the employer of his work related injury as well as testimony from the employer’s representative confirming that work related injury occurred on the claimed date of injury.
The employer City contended that the court of appeals was wrong to consider the first report to prove that the claimant’s injury occurred on the alleged date of injury. The Supreme held that the court of appeals incorrectly relied on the first report of injury as evidence of the injury date because section 86.11 only allows it to be admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of showing the employer had notice of the occurrence of an injury as required by section 85.23
When claimant went to an orthopaedic surgeon he filled out history form indicating that injury occurred at home when fell off ladder instead of at work. The district court concluded that the medical records containing this information was not substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s decision because the nurse who took the history did not testify. The court of appeal agreed and stated that the district court simply considered al the record evidence and determined that the employer’s admission of a work related injury on the alleged date of injury trumped the qualitatively weaker statements attributed to the claimant by medical personnel.
In its opinion the Supreme Court stated that a determination as to whether evidence trumps other evidence or whether one piece of evidence is qualitatively weaker than another piece of evidence is not an assessment for the district court or the court of appeal to make when it conducts a substantial review of an agency decision. It is the commissioner’s duty as the trier of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence and decide the facts in issue. The reviewing court only determines whether substantial evidence supports a finding according to those witnesses whom the commissioner believed. The supreme court stated that the district court and court of appeals improperly weighed the evidence to overrule the commissioner’s findings.
The supreme court stated that the medical records of the orthopaedic surgeon were admitted into evidence without objection and the commissioner was entitled to give them whatever weight they deserved. The supreme court found that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the commissioner’s finding that Arndt failed to prove his injury arose out of and was in the course of employment.
Posted by Richard G. Book on May 1, 2007 2:10 PM
|
Permalink
