 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart Stores7/31/2002
Employer appeals from a district court ruling on judicial review affirming an award of workers' compensation benefits to its employee. AFFIRMED.
Wal-Mart appeals from a district court ruling on judicial review affirming an award of workers' compensation benefits to its employee Sylvia Fulk. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Sylvia Fulk began driving a semi truck for Wal-Mart in the late 1980's when she was approximately fifty-years-old. Prior to that time she had worked as a housewife, a part-time bookkeeper, and had helped her husband farm. On May 11, 1998, while attempting to release the fifth wheel from her semi, Fulk suffered an injury to her back. When she awoke the following day she had difficulty moving. Fulk was off work until September of 1998, when she returned to work on a regular full-time schedule. She later switched to a seven days on, seven days off schedule. However, she was unable to work seven consecutive days due to the back pain she was experiencing. In July of 1999, Fulk hit a rut in the road while driving her truck and later experienced a feeling of near paralysis from the waist down. She never returned to work following this incident.
Based on the injuries sustained in the incident, Fulk brought a workers' compensation proceeding seeking permanent disability benefits. Wal-Mart challenged the extent of Fulk's industrial disability and claimed her disability was not causally related to the work injury. Following a hearing, the deputy commissioner awarded Fulk permanent total disability benefits. The workers' compensation commissioner affirmed the deputy's decision on intra-agency appeal, and the district court later affirmed the commissioner's appeal decision on judicial review. Wal-Mart appeals.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review, like that of the district court, is on error. Honeywell v. Allen Drilling Co., 506 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Iowa 1993). We reverse the commissioner's findings of fact if they are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when the record is viewed as a whole. Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(f) (2001). Evidence is substantial when reasonable minds would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. Honeywell, 506 N.W.2d at 435. The mere fact that we could draw inconsistent conclusions from the same evidence does not mean the commissioner's conclusions were unsupported by substantial evidence. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1995). The ultimate question is not whether the evidence supports a different finding but whether it supports the finding the commissioner actually made. Id.
III. Industrial Disability.
Wal-Mart first asserts Fulk's award of industrial disability benefits was improper in that she had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and improvement in her condition was still anticipated. An award of permanency benefits is appropriate at the termination of the "healing period." Iowa Code § 85.34(2). The healing period may be characterized as that period during which there is reasonable expectation of improvement of the disabling condition. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co. v. Kubli, 312 N.W.2d 60, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981). If it is not likely that further treatment of continuing pain, however soothing to the claimant, will decrease the extent of permanent industrial disability, then continued pain management should not prolong the healing period. Pitzer v. Rowley Interstate, 507 N.W.2d 389, 392 (Iowa 1993).
It is clear that at the time of the hearing on March 15, 2000, Fulk was continuing to receive pain management treatment. However, on July 7, 1999, Dr. Steven Thatcher noted tr
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|