 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp.3/12/2003
The petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision. AFFIRMED.
Christa Christensen appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision. She contends the commissioner's findings and conclusions were illogical. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The long history of this case, now exceeding ten years in litigation, has been set forth in a prior appeal to our supreme court and an appeal to this court. See Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp. I, 554 N.W.2d 254 (Iowa 1996); Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp. II, 602 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Most recently, this court reversed and remanded the case to the workers' compensation commissioner for proper consideration and weighing of the lay testimony regarding Christensen's injuries. Christensen II, 602 N.W.2d at 201. On remand, the commissioner found the lay testimony confirmed the medical evidence and did not establish a loss of use of Christensen's right arm greater than ten percent. Accordingly, the commissioner ordered compensation be paid to Christensen at the scheduled rate for a ten percent permanent partial disability. On judicial review, the district court affirmed.
In this appeal, Christensen contends the district court erred in affirming an agency decision which (1) gave no logical consideration to the evidence of permanent impairment to the right elbow, (2) illogically adopted inconsistent impairment ratings, and (3) illogically determined the impairment ratings covered all impairments claimed and proved in this case.
II. Analysis.
Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) (1999) sets forth the circumstances under which the court must reverse an agency action.
The court shall reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action, equitable or legal and including declaratory relief, if it determines that substantial rights of the person seeking judicial relief have been prejudiced because the agency action is any of the following:
f. Based upon a determination of fact clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed as a whole.
i. The product of reasoning that is so illogical as to render it wholly irrational.
j. The product of a decision-making process in which the agency did not consider a relevant and important matter relating to the propriety or desirability of the action in question that a rational decision maker in similar circumstances would have considered prior to taking that action.
m. Based upon an irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact that has clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency.
n. Otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Iowa Code ยงยง 17A.19(10)(i), (j), (m) & (n).
We review a district court's review of agency action for correction of errors of law. IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001).
The limited issue presented for our consideration is whether the commissioner's findings and conclusions were the product of reasoning that is so illogical as to render them wholly irrational. The commissioner reasoned:
It is found that although the percentage estimates assigned by the medical evaluators and those assigned by the lay witnesses differ greatly, the descriptions of claimant's fatigue, loss of endurance, pain, inability to perfo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|