 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Boor9/13/2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jack D. Levin, Judge.
The petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the industrial commissioner's denial of additional worker's compensation benefits to the petitioner in a review-reopening proceeding. The petitioner claims that the commissioner erred in not determining that the petitioner suffered from chronic pain syndrome and a major reactive depression causally related to the compensable back injury which entitled him to the reopening of the original worker's compensation award. The petitioner also claims that the commissioner's decision is affected by errors of law. AFFIRMED.
The petitioner-appellant, William Brown, appeals after the district court affirmed the Industrial Commissioner's denial of his claim for additional worker's compensation benefits in a review-reopening proceeding. Brown claims he suffers from chronic pain syndrome and a major reactive depression that was caused by an April 17, 1991, back injury for which he received benefits. He contends on appeal that the Commissioner erred in denying this claim and failing to award additional benefits. Brown also claims that the Commissioner's made several errors of law. We affirm the district court.
Original compensation claim. Brown initially suffered a low back injury on April 17, 1991, while working as a farmhand for Wayne Boor. He filed a worker's compensation claim against Boor and his worker's compensation carrier, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. Brown claimed he suffered both an injury to his back and from a psychological disorder that he claimed was caused by the back injury. On October 14, 1994, after a hearing, a deputy found Brown failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence his depressive disorder was work-related and no payment was made for it. The deputy further determined Brown sustained a 15 percent permanent partial disability to his back and awarded him healing period benefits.
Review-reopening proceedings.
On November 15,1995, Brown petitioned for a review reopening claiming he suffered chronic pain and a major reactive depression. He alleged both were the result of his injury while working for Brown. A hearing was held. Dr. Hector Cavallin, who examined Brown in June 1995, testified Brown at the time of this examination had a major depressive disorder, which differed from his prior "dysthymia." Dr. Cavallin's opinion as to Brown's prior depression was based on a review of Brown's medical records.
A deputy commissioner denied Brown's claim for reopening concluding Brown's physical injuries had not worsened and he was precluded from litigating again in the hearing on his petition for a review reopening the question of whether his mental condition was caused by his work related back injury . In reaching this result, the deputy found that Dr. Cavallin's opinion as to the change in Brown's mental condition was not entitled to weight because Cavallin did not examine Brown prior to the 1994 decision.
On appeal, the Industrial Commissioner affirmed the deputy commissioner's decision finding there was no evidence to support Brown's claim his depression was a change in condition that had been caused by the injury he received while Boor's employee.
Judicial review.
Brown petitioned the district court for judicial review of the Industrial Commissioner's decision. The district court affirmed finding the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Scope of review.
In reviewing a district court's decision rendered in its appellate capacity, we apply the standards of Iowa Cod
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.
|
|