 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co. v. Lawrence9/25/2002
A.Y. McDonald appeals from the district court's judgment affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision awarding benefits to William Lawrence. AFFIRMED.
A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co. appeals from the district court's judgment affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision awarding benefits on review-reopening to its former employee, William Lawrence. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Lawrence originally injured his back while working at A.Y. McDonald on August 24, 1989. Because of that injury, he had surgery on a herniated disk on November 14, 1990. The surgeon removed disk material at the L4-5 level. After the injury and surgery, Lawrence applied for and received workers' compensation benefits for a fifteen-percent industrial disability. Lawrence returned to work until he was laid off in 1992. He was recalled to work later that year; however, he was unable to pass the employer's required physical test. Lawrence has not worked for A.Y. McDonald since then. Lawrence's condition worsened and he was awarded an additional fifty-percent industrial disability (for a total of sixty-five percent) after a review-reopening proceeding in 1994.
Since that time, Lawrence has had two additional surgeries. Dr. Field performed surgery in September 1997 and again in January 1998. As a result, Field increased Lawrence's permanent whole body impairment from fifteen percent to seventeen percent. In 1999 Lawrence filed another review-reopening seeking an increased industrial disability award. The commissioner determined Lawrence's industrial disability was one hundred percent and awarded benefits accordingly. On judicial review the district court affirmed, resulting in this appeal.
II. Standard of Review.
An appeal of a district court's ruling on judicial review of an agency's decision is limited to determining whether the district court correctly applied the law in exercising its judicial review function under Iowa Code section 17A.19(8) (1995). Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 2001). The district court, as well as this court, is bound by the commissioner's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001).
III. The Merits.
The purpose of a review-reopening proceeding is to determine "whether or not the condition of the employee warrants an end to, diminishment of, or increase of compensation so awarded or agreed upon." Iowa Code § 86.14(2) (1997).
The claimant carries the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that, subsequent to the date of the award under review, he or she has suffered an impairment or lessening of earning capacity proximately caused by the original injury. Blacksmith v. All-American, Inc., 290 N.W.2d 348, 350 (Iowa 1980); Deaver v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 170 N.W.2d 455, 457 (Iowa 1969).
The necessary showing in a review-reopening proceeding may be made without proof of change in physical condition. Blacksmith, 290 N.W.2d at 350, 3A Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 81.31(e), at 15-1030 (1989). That is because industrial disability is the product of many factors, only one of which is functional disability stemming from the physical injury. McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181, 192 (Iowa 1980). Other factors include age, education, experience, and "inability, because of the injury, to engage in employment for which [the employee] is fitted." Id. (quoting Olson v. Goodyear Serv. Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 1121, 125 N.W.2d 251, 257 (1963)). Gallardo v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 482 N.W.2d 393, 395-96 (Iowa 1992).
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.
|
|