 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SYLVARA v. HANCOCK/WINNEBAGO CARE1/28/2002
Sharon Sylvara and her former employer and its insurance carrier all seek further judicial review of an industrial commissioner's decision. They challenge the commissioner's: (1) findings on the nature and extent of her injury, industrial disability, and healing period benefits; (2) award of penalty benefits; and (3) assessment of fees, expenses, and costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Sylvara worked as a home health care aide for Hancock/Winnebago Counties Home Health Care Aide and Nursing Services, where she primarily performed housekeeping services. She began experiencing arm, neck, and shoulder pain that resulted in a medical restriction on her work hours. Ultimately, health care professionals expanded the restriction on hours to a temporary restriction on her work there. Sylvara did not return to the job.
In 1996, Sylvara filed a workers compensation claim against Hancock and its insurance carrier, ITT Hartford, alleging she sustained a cumulative work-related injury to her right shoulder, back, neck, and upper extremities that caused her permanent disability. The industrial commissioner, by delegation to a deputy commissioner, issued a final agency decision determining Sylvara sustained a work-related injury that resulted in a fifteen percent industrial disability. The commissioner also awarded healing period benefits and found the employer had delayed and underpaid some compensation, entitling Sylvara to penalty benefits. Sylvara filed a petition for rehearing which the commissioner partially granted. Both parties sought judicial review.
The district court affirmed the commissioner's ruling but remanded the case to the agency for a clearer explanation of its penalty award. Sylvara appealed and Hancock cross-appealed. The parties raise a host of issues falling into the following general categories: (1) challenges based on the asserted absence of substantial evidence to support the commissioner's determinations; (2) challenges to the penalty benefit award; and (3) challenges to the allocation or non-allocation of fees, expenses, and costs.
II. Substantial Evidence Issues
A. Substantial Evidence Standard. As a preliminary matter, the parties maintain that the district court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the agency record. Specifically, they assert that the court was required to consider the agency record as a whole, not just the record supporting the agency findings.
We agree with the parties that the Administrative Procedure Act requires a district court on judicial review to examine the agency record "as a whole." See Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(f) (1995). While the district court's position to the contrary finds support in Second Injury Fund v. Hodgins, 461 N.W.2d 454, 456 (Iowa 1990), that opinion relied on an administrative law principle formulated before the Administrative Procedure Act was promulgated. Id. (citing Deaver v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 170 N.W.2d 455, 459 (Iowa 1969)). The Administrative Procedure Act expressly altered that principle. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(f). Accordingly, in examining issues implicating the substantial evidence standard of review, we will view the agency record as a whole.
B. Work-Related Injury. Hancock asserts there is not substantial evidence to support the deputy commissioner's determination that Sylvara sustained a work-related injury. We disagree.
Claimants have the burden of proving that an injury "arose out of" and "in the course of" their employment. Iowa Code § 85.3(1); Koehler Elec. v. Wills, 608 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2000). The phrase "arise out of" requires a s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|