 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MANPOWER9/26/2001
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In August of 1996 JoAnn Van Eck began employment with Manpower, Inc. Her primary job duties included cleaning machinery, sweeping, mopping, and vacuuming. On September 9, 1996, Van Eck sought medical treatment for pain in her wrists and arms, which was later diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She eventually underwent bilateral carpal tunnel surgery to alleviate her symptoms. Van Eck's subsequent workers' compensation claim was denied by Manpower, which claimed her injuries were not causally related to her employment.
At arbitration the deputy commissioner concluded Van Eck suffered a fourteen percent permanent partial disability as a result of repetitive tasks at Manpower. The deputy commissioner also awarded Van Eck penalty benefits, finding Manpower's denial of Van Eck's claim prior to conducting a proper investigation resulted in a delay in payments without reasonable cause. In reviewing the arbitration decision, the industrial commissioner and the district court both affirmed the deputy commissioner's decision.
On appeal Manpower contends the district court erred in affirming the industrial commissioner's award of fourteen percent permanent partial disability and penalty benefits.
II. Standard of Review.
Our review is limited to correction of errors of law. Koehler Elec. v. Wills, 608 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2000). When we review findings of the industrial commissioner, those findings carry the effect of a jury verdict. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1995). We will reverse an agency's findings only if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we determine substantial evidence does not support them. Id. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the given conclusion. St. Luke's Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Iowa 2000).
III. Permanent Partial Disability Benefits.
Manpower argues that a finding of fourteen percent permanent partial disability is not supported by substantial evidence. In determining Van Eck's entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits the findings adopted by the commissioner state:
Claimant has two impairment ratings. Dr. Rosenfeld, her treating physician, has determined she has sustained a 5 percent impairment to both arms and Dr. Ban has determined that claimant has sustained a total of 14 percent impairment pursuant to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and the conversion tables contained therein. Dr. Ban offers the more credible impairment rating. It is clear that Dr. Ban's evaluation was done pursuant to the Guides and that he had access to all of claimant's medical records. Thus, it is determined that claimant is entitled to 14 percent of 500 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits, or a total of 70 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits.
Manpower contends the industrial commissioner erred in failing to adopt Dr. Rosenfeld's impairment rating in that he was Van Eck's treating physician and provided the more credible impairment rating. In reviewing the industrial commissioner's findings of fact, the question is not whether the evidence might support a different finding, but whether it supports the findings actually made. Kiesecker v. Webster City Custom Meats Inc., 528 N.W.2d 109, 110 (Iowa 1995). The mere fact we could draw inconsistent conclusions from the same evidence does not mean substantial evidence does not support the commissioner's determinations. Terwilliger, 529 N.W.2d at 271.
Because the resolution of this factual dispute implicates the commissioner's assessment of credibility, we are
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.
|
|