 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Oelwein Community School District v. Williams6/25/2003
ent of her current back condition. While he conceded that disc problems could be caused by any type of abnormal movement, Williams testified that she had done nothing out of the ordinary that might have led to disc herniation. Dr. Lantz agreed, based on his review of Williams's medical records, that there was no evidence of any other cause of her back problems. His opinion as to causation was uncontroverted.
While the evidence of causation is less than overwhelming, assessing the weight of the evidence is within the exclusive domain of the agency. Burns v. Board of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993). Courts are not allowed to reassess the weight of the evidence upon review. Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 602 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The agency may accept or reject Dr. Lantz's testimony, in whole or in part. See Sherman v. Pella Corp., 576 N.W.2d 312, 321 (Iowa 1998). The agency, as the fact finder, determines the weight to be afforded to his testimony, given the accuracy of the facts relied upon and other surrounding circumstances. Id. It is also allowed to utilize its own experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge in evaluating the evidence before it. Iowa Code § 17A.14(5). Under such a standard, the record contains substantial evidence in support of the agency's causal finding.
IV. Penalty Benefits
Penalty benefits are awarded if all or part of an employee's benefits are delayed or withheld without reasonable or probable cause or excuse. See Iowa Code § 86.13. A reasonable excuse exists if the issue is "fairly debatable." Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996). Here, the agency awarded penalty benefits because EMC calculated weekly benefits in a manner contrary to agency precedent, resulting in a lower benefit amount. However, that agency precedent has been challenged, and at least partially invalidated.
In Area Education Agency 7 v. Bauch, 646 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Iowa 2002), our supreme court held that calculation of an employee's weekly earnings under section 85.36 is governed by the method of paying those earnings to the employee. Thus, an educator's wages are not to be calculated under the daily formula found in section 85.36(6) merely because her wages arguably accrued on a daily basis. Id. Rather, the agency should apply the formula under section 85.36 that corresponds to the frequency of payment. Id. Williams was paid, not on a daily basis, but semimonthly. Notwithstanding agency precedent, the method of benefit calculation was fairly debatable, and penalty benefits were not appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
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.
|
|