Opinion
No. 3-035 / 02-1471
Filed April 4, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Douglas F. Staskal, Judge.
An employer appeals the district court's affirmance of an agency finding that its employee sustained a five percent industrial disability. REVERSED.
D. Brian Scieszinski of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Thomas Reilly of Thomas J. Reilly Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
An employer appeals a finding of industrial disability. On further judicial review, we reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Willie Weatherall was employed by Eagle Iron Works in various factory positions that required heavy lifting. After lifting some items, Weatherall began experiencing pain in his groin area. He sought treatment and ultimately had surgery to repair a hernia. Following a recuperation period, he returned to Eagle Iron Works.
Weatherall sought workers' compensation benefits for various injuries, including the hernia. Only the hernia is at issue in this appeal.
The deputy workers' compensation commissioner found that Weatherall sustained an industrial disability of five percent based on the hernia, and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. The award was affirmed on intra-agency appeal and on judicial review. The employer appealed.
II. Scope of Review
Our scope of review is governed by the judicial review provisions of Iowa Code chapter 17A.19. Those provisions have been amended within the past five years. In deciding whether the old or new version applies, our highest court recently held we do not look to the date the claim was filed but to the date of the final agency action. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493, 498 (Iowa 2003); cf. 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1202 § 46 (stating amendments are to take effect July 1, 1999 and apply to "agency proceedings commenced on or after that date"). Therefore, we apply the provisions of Iowa Code section 17A.19(10), rather than section 17A.19(8).
Section 17A.19(10) does not "change the existing principles of law applicable to judicial review," but provides "greater specificity." Locate.Plus.Com., Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Iowa 2002). The new provision "reaffirms the notion that courts must not `simply rubber stamp the agency fact finding without engaging in a fairly intensive review of the record to ensure that the fact finding is itself reasonable.'" Caselman, 657 N.W.2d at 499 (quoting Arthur E. Bonfield, Amendments to Iowa Administrative Procedure Act (1998) at 68).
An agency's fact findings are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed as a whole. Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f). Where the evidence is undisputed and reasonable minds could not draw different inferences from that evidence, we may determine the facts as a matter of law. Bearce v. FMC Corp, 465 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991).
III. Industrial Disability
Industrial disability measures the extent to which an injury impairs the employee's earning capacity. Second Injury Fund v. Shank, 516 N.W.2d 808, 815 (Iowa 1994). Factors in determining industrial disability include the degree of functional disability (defined as the loss of physiological capacity to the body), the employee's age, education, qualifications, experience, and the ability of the employee to engage in suitable employment. Id.
Eagle Iron Works challenges the agency determination that Weatherall sustained industrial disability of five percent. The company contends that the agency's undisputed fact findings preclude this determination as a matter of law. We agree.
In addressing the employer's appeal of the deputy workers' compensation commissioner's disability determination and the employee's request for a higher award, the agency made the following key fact findings: 1) Weatherall sustained a functional impairment of five percent; 2) he experienced no specific work restrictions justifying a higher award; and 3) he was still employed and earning comparable pay, making a higher award unnecessary. These fact findings are supported by substantial evidence. The record reveals Weatherall had surgery to repair a hernia. Following surgery, a physician gave him a functional impairment rating of five percent. Weatherall returned to work without restriction, ended up performing a job he had bid for before getting the hernia, and worked full time earning the highest wages he had ever earned. When asked if the hernia caused him problems after it was repaired, he stated, "[a]s of yet I've been doing pretty good."
On this record, we cannot say Weatherall's hernia adversely affected his earning capacity. See IBP, Inc. v. al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 632 (Iowa 2000) (stating industrial disability is arrived at by measuring loss to employee's earning capacity). Although Weatherall claims the industrial disability determination is supported by evidence of his altered work patterns, he admits these adjustments were made to accommodate impairments to his back, hands, and shoulder rather than to his groin area. It is clear, therefore, that if Weatherall sustained an industrial disability, it was not as a result of the hernia.
We reverse the agency determination that Weatherall was "five percent industrially disabled" as a result of the hernia injury.