 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BEEF PROD. v. HOLMES2/20/2002
Tommy Holmes appeals and Beef Products, Inc. and ITT Hartford cross-appeal from the decision of the district court on judicial review which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Workers' Compensation Commissioner the agency's decision awarding Holmes benefits for industrial disability. We affirm in part and reverse in part, affirming the agency's decision.
Holmes filed two petitions against Beef Products, Inc. seeking workers' compensation benefits because of claimed cumulative injuries occurring on April 15, 1997 involving his left knee and hemorrhoids. In August 1999, hearing was held before deputy commissioner Walshire. In September 1999, Deputy Walshire issued his arbitration decision, concluding, in relevant part, that: (1) Holmes sustained a single, simultaneous injury process consisting of an aggravation of prior existing conditions to his left knee and hemorrhoids on or about April 15, 1997, arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) Holmes suffered an industrial disability to the body as a whole and a twenty-five percent loss of earning capacity and should receive permanent partial disability benefits; and (3) Holmes was entitled to certain medical and mileage expenses. Beef Products appealed the decision.
In April 2000, Commissioner Post delegated the authority to issue the final agency decision to Chief Deputy Commissioner Heitland. In May 2000, the chief deputy commissioner issued his appeal decision, which upheld the deputy commissioner's decision. Beef Products and ITT Hartford petitioned for judicial review.
In December 2000 the district court issued its ruling affirming that portion of the agency decision regarding Holmes' left knee injury, reversing that portion of the agency decision regarding the hemorrhoidal condition, and remanding the case to the commissioner for a determination whether or not Holmes is entitled to industrial disability for the knee condition alone. Holmes appeals and the employer and insurer cross-appeal.
A district court when exercising the power of judicial review conferred by section 17A.19, is itself functioning in an appellate capacity to correct errors of law, as specified in section 17A.19(8). Jackson County Public Hospital v. Public Employment Relations Board, 280 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Iowa 1979); Swanson v. Employment Appeal Bd., 554 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). When we review the decision of a district court rendered pursuant to section 17A.19, the sole question is whether the district court correctly applied the law. In order to make that determination, we apply the standards of section 17A.19(8) to the agency action to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 318 N.W.2d 162, 164-65 (Iowa 1982) (citing Jackson County Public Hospital, 280 N.W.2d at 429-30). Nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level; the cardinal rule of administrative law is that judgment calls are within the province of the administrative tribunal, not the courts. Sellers v. Employment Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The agency, not the court, weighs the evidence, and we are obliged to apply those findings broadly and liberally to uphold rather than defeat the commissioner's decision. Pirelli-Armstrong Tire Co. v. Reynolds, 562 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1997) (citing Ward v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 304 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Iowa 1981)). The court must not reassess the weight of the evidence because the weight of the evidence remains within the agency's exclusive domain. Robbennolt v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 555 N.W.2d 229, 234 (Iowa 1996); Burns v. Board of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993). Credibility determ
Page 1 2 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|