From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AVEY v. JOHN Q. HAMMONS MGMT. CO.

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 30, 2002
No. 2-840 / 02-0465 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2-840 / 02-0465.

Filed December 30, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, SCOTT D. ROSENBERG, Judge.

The petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision. AFFIRMED.

Martin Ozga of Max Schott Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Harry Dahl, Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.


Betty Avey appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision. She contends the commissioner's findings and conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence. Our review is for errors at law. IBP v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001).

Avey first contends substantial evidence does not support the agency's finding which adopted the ratings given by her treating physician, Dr. Formanek, for her CMC arthroplasty and upper extremity carpal tunnel. She argues Dr. Formanek's ratings, which were determined according to AMA guides, did not provide sufficient detail to explain how the ratings were deduced, and therefore there is no support for the ratings. She claims the ratings of the physician who performed an independent medical examination, Dr. Koenig, were more detailed and should be adopted.

We are bound by the commissioner's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same conclusion. St. Luke's Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Iowa 2000). In reviewing the 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. Id. Here, the commissioner found Dr. Formanek's ratings were more consistent with Avey's complaints. Substantial evidence supports this finding. We will not interfere with the decision just because the evidence could support a different conclusion. Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143, 150 (Iowa 1996). Avey has failed to show the ratings were made in error, or that they are unsupported by the evidence.

Avey next contends the agency's finding that her bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome was not related to her employment is not supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Formanek and Dr. Koenig were in disagreement on this issue. Dr. Formanek opined that the cubital tunnel syndrome developed after Avey discontinued her employment and was caused in significant part by her diabetes mellitus. In finding his opinion to be more credible, the agency noted that Avey was not diagnosed with this syndrome prior to the end of her employment. The condition was not discovered until Dr. Koenig's evaluation, which was performed one year after Avey left her employment. The agency found Dr. Formanek's opinion was consistent with Avey's complaints and the objective evidence in the record. We find substantial evidence supports the agency's finding.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

AVEY v. JOHN Q. HAMMONS MGMT. CO.

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 30, 2002
No. 2-840 / 02-0465 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002)
Case details for

AVEY v. JOHN Q. HAMMONS MGMT. CO.

Case Details

Full title:BETTY AVEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JOHN Q. HAMMONS MANAGEMENT CO. and…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Dec 30, 2002

Citations

No. 2-840 / 02-0465 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002)