« Iowa Minimum Wage Increase |
Main Blog Page
| Update on Mileage Rate in Iowa Workers' Compensation Cases »
In a prior article, I questioned the wisdom of a post-hearing penalty decision issued by the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner. In that article, I expressed concerns about whether the employer's right to appeal was being eroded in workers' compensation cases.
Having criticized the Commisisoner on October 26, 2007, I now need to express my admiration of and my compliments to the Commissioner. After receiving the October 11, 2007 Appeal Decision, awarding post-hearing penalty benefits, my clients petitioned the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner for rehearing to reconsider his decision.
To his credit, the Commissioner took this request for rehearing seriously. He granted rehearing, conducted another review of this claim, and entered a Ruling on Rehearing in the Millenkamp case on December 10, 2007. Not only did the Commissioner rehear this case, he had the fortitude to reverse his own prior decision on legal grounds.
In his December 10, 2007 Ruling on Rehearing, the Commissioner concluded that an Arbitration Decision is "only a proposed decision of a presiding officer under Iowa Code section 17A.15." The Commissioner further noted that "all issues presented on intra-agency appeal are reviewed by the commissioner de novo" and noted that "there was no finality to the deputy's arbitration decision."
In this instance, the underlying denial of the claim was determined to be reasonable for a variety of reasons. The Commissioner, therefore, noted that "if defendants' denial of benefits was fairly debatable before the decision, it was almost certainly fairly debatable after the decision." The Commissioner has concluded in the Millenkamp case that the continued denial of the underlying claim throughout the intra-agency appeallate process was reasonable because the causation issues under debate remained "fairly debatable" throughout a de novo appeal process.
It is not easy to reverse one's own judgment. Having reviewed something and made a decision, most people (perhaps including myself) are not inclined to reverse their own judgment and decision. Therefore, credit must be given to Commissioner Godfrey for his willingness to review his own decision again and enter totally contrary findings upon reconsideration of the circumstances of the case.
Additionally, the Commissioner has (in my opinion) found a means that alleviates many of the concerns I expressed on October 26, 2007 about the potential erosion of the employer's right to appeal. The Commissioner leaves open the possibility of post-hearing penalty awards in other factually appropriate cases, while still permitting employers to take and prosecute de novo appeals when the facts of a particular case remain fairly debatable even after entry of a proposed decision of a Deputy Commissioner. Credit goes to the Commissioner on this one, not only for the result he reached but for the courage to reconsider his own judgment.
Posted by William H. Grell on December 12, 2007 2:12 PM
|
Permalink
