Opinion
No. 1-796 / 01-0081.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, C.H. PELTON, Judge.
The petitioner appeals the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming an award of workers' compensation benefits to the respondent. AFFIRMED.
Mark A. Woollums and Jean Dickson Feeney of Betty, Neuman McMahon, L.L.P., Davenport, for appellant.
John H. Westensee of Braud, Westensee VanDerGinst, Ltd., Rock Island, Illinois, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Claimant Terry Freels is a man in his mid-forties, without a high school education but with some specialized electrical training. On August 11, 1996, he was working for Archer Daniels Midland Company. (ADM), when he injured his right shoulder pounding coal. The deputy worker's compensation commissioner found Freels had suffered a work-related injury with a resulting thirty-percent permanent partial disability:
Based upon a consistent pattern of complaints after August 11, 1996, leading up to the surgery by the Veterans Administration and the permanent restriction imposed by his treating Veterans Administration physician, it is found that the work injury of August 11, 1996 is a cause of significant permanent impairment and disability to the body as a whole. Claimant is now permanently restricted from heavy work involving his right arm. . . . Clearly, Terry cannot return to full duty at ADM or any other manual labor job. A significant amount of Terry's past work involves heavy manual labor work such as dumping waste at 3M, handling boxes at International Paper and moving heavy barrels at National By-Product.
ADM argues the deputy commissioner's reference to Freels's "past work" for National By-Product demonstrates the deputy incorrectly concluded Freels worked for National By-Product prior to working for ADM. While this language is possibly open to such an interpretation, a review of the record demonstrates the agency's awareness that Freels's work for National By-Product occurred after his right-shoulder injury.
The deputy's decision was upheld on both agency appeal and judicial review. ADM appeals, claiming the record does not contain substantial evidence in support of the thirty-percent industrial disability finding.
Scope of Review . Review of agency actions is limited to correcting errors at law. IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001). The agency's decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, which requires that the entirety of the record, including supporting and detracting relevant evidence, as well as credibility assessments, be sufficient to allow a reasonable and neutral person to reach the same conclusion as the agency. Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f) (West Supp. 1999).
Industrial Disability . ADM points to Freels's ability to perform heavy-labor tasks post-injury, and various indications Freels no longer experienced difficulties with his right shoulder, in support of its argument there is not substantial evidence he suffered a permanent physical impairment. Freels points to his testimony that he was able to accomplish some of this work by primarily using his left shoulder, and the fact many of the post-injury tasks were not of the nature or intensity of his work for ADM. Clearly, the evidence was conflicted, and we agree with ADM the proof of permanent impairment was less than overwhelming. However, assessing the weight of the evidence is within the exclusive domain of the agency fact finder, Burns v. Bd. of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993), and courts are not allowed to reassess the weight of the evidence upon judicial review. Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 602 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
Given that the medical evidence regarding physical impairment was also conflicted, and could be reasonably viewed to substantiate either position, we find there was substantial evidence to support a finding Freels suffered an impairment to his right shoulder permanently affecting his ability to perform heavy labor. Whether this finding translates into a reduction in earning capacity is dependent upon consideration of all factors bearing upon actual and gainful employability. St. Luke's Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 653 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted). These include not only the functional disability, but also age, education, qualifications, experience, and the ability to engage in similar employment. Id.
Evidence was presented that Freels is currently unable to earn wages akin to those received for performing heavy labor. Although Freels did not have an extensive history of performing heavy-labor task, we cannot say his experience in this area was so limited as to be irrelevant to the agency's decision. When reviewing a workers' compensation decision it is irrelevant whether we might have reached a different conclusion than that reached by the agency. It matters only whether the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence. Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f). When the reduction in Freels's wages is viewed in light of his age, education and training, and the injury's impact on his ability to perform heavy labor, the agency's thirty-percent industrial disability finding is substantially supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.