Opinion
No. 1-1015 / 00-2096.
Filed February 20, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, ARTIS REIS, Judge.
Tommy Holmes appeals and Beef Products, Inc. and ITT Hartford cross-appeal from the decision of the district court on judicial review which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Workers' Compensation Commissioner the agency's decision awarding Holmes benefits for industrial disability. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART; AGENCY AFFIRMED.
John Pieters, Jesup, for appellant.
Valerie Landis, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.
Tommy Holmes appeals and Beef Products, Inc. and ITT Hartford cross-appeal from the decision of the district court on judicial review which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Workers' Compensation Commissioner the agency's decision awarding Holmes benefits for industrial disability. We affirm in part and reverse in part, affirming the agency's decision.
Holmes filed two petitions against Beef Products, Inc. seeking workers' compensation benefits because of claimed cumulative injuries occurring on April 15, 1997 involving his left knee and hemorrhoids. In August 1999, hearing was held before deputy commissioner Walshire. In September 1999, Deputy Walshire issued his arbitration decision, concluding, in relevant part, that: (1) Holmes sustained a single, simultaneous injury process consisting of an aggravation of prior existing conditions to his left knee and hemorrhoids on or about April 15, 1997, arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) Holmes suffered an industrial disability to the body as a whole and a twenty-five percent loss of earning capacity and should receive permanent partial disability benefits; and (3) Holmes was entitled to certain medical and mileage expenses. Beef Products appealed the decision.
In April 2000, Commissioner Post delegated the authority to issue the final agency decision to Chief Deputy Commissioner Heitland. In May 2000, the chief deputy commissioner issued his appeal decision, which upheld the deputy commissioner's decision. Beef Products and ITT Hartford petitioned for judicial review.
In December 2000 the district court issued its ruling affirming that portion of the agency decision regarding Holmes' left knee injury, reversing that portion of the agency decision regarding the hemorrhoidal condition, and remanding the case to the commissioner for a determination whether or not Holmes is entitled to industrial disability for the knee condition alone. Holmes appeals and the employer and insurer cross-appeal.
A district court when exercising the power of judicial review conferred by section 17A.19, is itself functioning in an appellate capacity to correct errors of law, as specified in section 17A.19(8). Jackson County Public Hospital v. Public Employment Relations Board, 280 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Iowa 1979); Swanson v. Employment Appeal Bd., 554 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). When we review the decision of a district court rendered pursuant to section 17A.19, the sole question is whether the district court correctly applied the law. In order to make that determination, we apply the standards of section 17A.19(8) to the agency action to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 318 N.W.2d 162, 164-65 (Iowa 1982) (citing Jackson County Public Hospital, 280 N.W.2d at 429-30). Nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level; the cardinal rule of administrative law is that judgment calls are within the province of the administrative tribunal, not the courts. Sellers v. Employment Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The agency, not the court, weighs the evidence, and we are obliged to apply those findings broadly and liberally to uphold rather than defeat the commissioner's decision. Pirelli-Armstrong Tire Co. v. Reynolds, 562 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1997) (citing Ward v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 304 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Iowa 1981)). The court must not reassess the weight of the evidence because the weight of the evidence remains within the agency's exclusive domain. Robbennolt v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 555 N.W.2d 229, 234 (Iowa 1996); Burns v. Board of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993). Credibility determinations are for the agency. Kostelac v. Feldman's, Inc., 497 N.W.2d 853, 858 (Iowa 1993). The agency, as fact finder, may accept or reject expert testimony, in whole or in part, and determines the weight to give to expert testimony. IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 631 (Iowa 2000); Sondag v. Ferris Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903, 907 (Iowa 1974). The commissioner's findings are binding on appeal unless a contrary result is compelled as a matter of law. Ward, 562 N.W.2d at 238.
The deputy commissioner made an explicit determination Holmes was a credible witness. He also expressly gave more weight to the expert opinions of treating physicians over the one-time evaluating physician. The chief deputy commissioner's appeal decision also expressly gave more weight to the opinions of the treating physicians. The district court concluded Holmes' credibility was questionable. It also discounted the opinion of Dr. Roa, the physician who treated Holmes' hemorrhoids, concluding his opinions rested on factual inaccuracies. After discounting Dr. Roa's opinion, the court concluded the hemorrhoid condition was not causally connected to Holmes' employment. The court concluded the knee condition was aggravated by Holmes' work at Beef Products. The court affirmed the award of medical and mileage expenses related only to the knee injury. It remanded the case on the issue of whether Holmes is entitled to industrial disability solely on the knee condition.
In our review of the district court's decision, we conclude it exceeded its scope of review in reevaluating the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to expert opinions. In so doing, it invaded the province of the agency as fact finder. We conclude when the whole record is reviewed, substantial evidence supports the agency's decision. We therefore affirm that part of the district court's decision which upheld the agency's decision and reverse that part of the court's decision which reversed part of the agency's decision and remanded the case to the agency. The decision of the agency, awarding industrial disability benefits for Holmes' knee and hemorrhoid condition is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART; AGENCY AFFIRMED.