 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hull v. Second Injury Fund6/19/2002
ecause of the injury, to engage in employment for which the employee is fitted; loss of earnings caused by a job transfer for reasons related to the injury; and the employer's refusal to give any sort of work to an impaired employee. IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 632-33 (Iowa 2000).
At issue here is the question of whether there are jobs in the community that the employee can perform and for which the employee can realistically compete. Guyton v. Irving Jensen Co., 373 N.W.2d 101, 104 (Iowa 1985).
Hull argues the commissioner's failure to make specific fact-findings and relate them to his legal conclusion lends credence to his contention that the 45% permanent partial disability award is irrational, illogical, and wholly unjustifiable. While it is true that the commissioner has a duty to state the evidence he relies on and to detail the reasons for his conclusions in order to show the path he has taken through conflicting evidence, an agency's decision is sufficient if it is possible to work backward from the agency's written decision and deduce what must have been the agency's legal conclusions and its findings. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d at 633-34. In doing so, we fulfill our duty to broadly and liberally apply the commissioner's findings to uphold rather than to defeat the commissioner's decision. Id. at 634. That is the framework of analysis used by the district court and we apply the same analysis on appeal.
We conclude the industrial commissioner's award of 45% industrial disability was rational, logical, and justifiable.
It is normally incumbent upon an injured [worker], at a hearing to determine loss of earning capacity, to demonstrate a reasonable effort to secure employment in the area of . . . residence. Where testimony discloses that a reasonable effort was made, the burden of going forward with evidence to show the availability of suitable employment is on the employer and carrier. Guyton, 373 N.W.2d at 105 (citing Employers Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm'n., 541 P.2d 580, 582 (Ariz. 1975)).
Here, the commissioner did not need to consider whether suitable employment was available for Hull because the commissioner found Hull did not make a real effort to find employment after AZ informed him he could not return to work. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. In his Social Security Disability Report, Hull stated he would not be interested in receiving rehabilitation services to help get him back to work. Indeed, Hull never sought the aid of an employment, rehabilitation, or vocational expert for the purpose of job placement or rehabilitation. When asked by way of interrogatory whether he had tried to obtain a job or engage in work of any nature, Hull simply answered, "I am totally disabled." Because Hull did not make a reasonable effort to secure employment, we find no error.
B.
Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(i) requires the court to reverse an agency action if it is " he product of reasoning that is so illogical as to render it wholly irrational." Hull argues three parts of the commissioner's decision reveal it to be the product of illogical reasoning: 1) the commissioner's finding that the doctor's lifting restriction on using both arms was unpersuasive because there was no injury to Hull's right arm; 2) the commissioner's finding that Hull had no intention of looking for any type of work; and 3) the commissioner's mention that Hull's expert made no attempt to find him employment.
We reject Hull's characterization of the commissioner's decision as illogical. Although Hull theorizes why his treating physician imposed lifting restrictions on using both arms, the commissioner correctly
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|