 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Oelwein Community School District v. Williams6/25/2003
A school district and its workers' compensation carrier appeal from a district court ruling that affirmed an award of workers' compensation benefits to an employee of the district. The employee cross-appeals the district court's reversal of a penalty benefit award. AFFIRMED.
The Oelwein Community School District and its workers' compensation carrier, EMC Insurance Companies, appeal from a district court ruling that upheld an agency award of workers' compensation benefits to Julie Williams, a district employee. Williams cross-appeals as to the court's reversal of a penalty benefits award. We affirm the district court on both points.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In December 1996 Julie Williams, a teacher and drama and speech director for the Oelwein Community School District, had non-work-related bunion surgery on her right foot. In January 1997 she slipped and fell while at work, re-injuring her right foot. A second surgery was performed in February 1997. Williams then suffered a non-work-related slip and fall, in January 1998. The fall bruised but did not re-injure her right foot. Although Williams did not experience any specific back trauma during the 1998 fall, she began having leg and back problems. She was ultimately diagnosed with a left L5 radiculopathy and L4-5 disc extrusion. She underwent surgery, but experienced another disc extrusion.
Williams filed a workers' compensation claim against the school district and EMC Insurance Companies (collectively EMC), in April 1999. She asserted that her foot and back problems were caused by the 1997 work injury . At the September 2000 arbitration hearing Williams offered the testimony of her podiatrist, Dr. Lantz. Dr. Lantz opined that the second foot surgery was necessitated by damage inflicted during the 1997 fall, and that as a result of the second surgery, there was a change in Williams's gait. He opined that this change in gait was a proximate cause of her back problems. No other expert opinion was presented regarding the cause of Williams's radiculopathy and disc extrusions.
The deputy commissioner found that Williams's foot impairment was causally related to the 1997 at-work fall, and relied on Dr. Lantz's testimony to find that the change in Williams's gait had caused her back problems. Based on evidence that Williams's back ailment prevented her from sitting for long periods of time or lifting heavy objects, the deputy concluded that Williams had sustained a ten-percent industrial disability. The deputy calculated compensation under Iowa Code section 85.36(6) (1999), but declined to award penalty benefits.
EMC appealed the finding that Williams's back problems were caused by her 1997 work injury , and both EMC and Williams appealed the weekly benefits calculation. Williams also argued penalty benefits should have been awarded pursuant to section 86.13. The agency affirmed the causation finding, and the use of section 85.36(6) to calculate Williams's weekly benefits, but arrived at a higher benefit amount. It also imposed penalty benefits because, in conflict with established agency precedent, EMC had not calculated Williams's weekly benefits pursuant to section 85.36(6).
On judicial review, the district court affirmed the causal finding, but remanded Williams's case for recalculation of weekly benefits in accordance with the recent holding in Area Education Agency 7 v. Bauch, 646 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 2002). It also reversed the imposition of penalty benefits, determining that, in light of the holding in Bauch, there had been a good faith dispute over the proper method of benefit calculation. EMC appeals from the court's ruling, arguing there was not substantial evide
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|