Opinion
No. 1-658 / 00-1944.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, JOHN P. DUFFY, Judge.
The petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision denying his claim for benefits for an alleged work-related shoulder injury. AFFIRMED.
Mark S. Soldat, Algona, for appellant.
Patrick V. Waldron of Patterson, Lorentzen, Duffield, Timmons, Irish, Becker Ordway, Des Moines, for appellees.
Heard by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Petitioner-appellant, Roger Hentges, appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's decision denying his claim for benefits for an alleged work-related shoulder injury. Hentges claims the district court erred in determining there was substantial evidence supporting the commissioner's determination Hentges did not prove his shoulder condition was work related and he did not prove he sustained additional industrial disability because of a work-related cumulative injury to his right shoulder. We affirm.
I. Background .
In August 1990 Hentges began working as a machinist for Kossuth Fabricators, Inc. (KOFAB). The job required repetitive lifting. While working for KOFAB Hentges had various complaints regarding his hands, wrists, arms, neck, lower back, and left shoulder. He did not report to KOFAB any injuries to his right shoulder.
In January 1993 a treating physician noted Hentges was suffering from a mild rotator cuff strain to his right shoulder. In February 1993 Hentges suffered a hernia he claimed was work related. In March 1993, surgery was performed to repair the hernia. In November 1993 Hentges complained to a doctor of a right shoulder strain, which he claimed was aggravated by his work. However, it appears that he did not miss any work due to his right shoulder condition. In July 1994, he quit his job with KOFAB and took a similar job with another company. He claims he left because of his right shoulder pain, but he did not inform KOFAB of this condition.
In February 1995, Hentges filed workers' compensation claims for his hernia and for his right shoulder condition. At an arbitration hearing, Hentges presented lay testimony to support his claim he had a work-related right shoulder injury that caused him functional impairment. Hentges did not present expert medical testimony to establish he had a cumulative work-related injury as of July 1994. The workers' compensation commissioner determined Hentges's claim on his right shoulder was barred by the statute of limitations as untimely but determined Hentges suffered a work-related hernia injury, which caused a twenty percent disability.
On Hentges's petition for judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the commissioner regarding the date of the right shoulder injury. The district court remanded the case to the commissioner to determine whether Hentges suffered a work-related right shoulder injury for which he should receive benefits. In September 1999, the workers' compensation commissioner entered her decision on remand, concluding Hentges failed to meet his burden of proof he sustained a work-related right shoulder injury. The commissioner also concluded Hentges failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his right shoulder injury caused either temporary or permanent disability.
Hentges petitioned for judicial review challenging the commissioner's remand decision. In November 2000, the district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. The court found substantial evidence in the record supported the commissioner's finding Hentges alleged right shoulder condition was not work related. The court noted that Hentges failed to present expert
medical testimony to support a cumulative work-related injury. The court agreed with the commissioner that Hentges failed to meet his burden of proof on the issue. The court also concluded substantial evidence supported the commissioner's determination Hentges did not satisfy his burden of proof for establishing his alleged shoulder injury caused temporary or permanent disability. The court found the commissioner did consider the lay testimony but found it was insufficient to establish Hentges's claims.
II. Claims on appeal .
On appeal, Hentges claims the district court erred in affirming the commissioner's decision because commissioner based her decision on the fact he did not present expert testimony and that she did not consider his lay witness testimony. He argues expert testimony is not necessary.
III. Scope of review .
Our review of the industrial commissioner's decisions is governed by Iowa Code chapter 17A. Aluminum Co. of America v. Musal, 622 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Iowa 2001). We review the district court's decision to determine whether the district court correctly applied the law in exercising its section 17A.19 judicial review function. Ahrendsen ex rel. Ahrendsen v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 613 N.W.2d 674, 676 (Iowa 2000). We, like the district court, are "bound by the commissioner's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Bergen v. Iowa Veterans Home, 577 N.W.2d 629, 630 (Iowa 1998). The district court may reverse the commissioner's decision if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f). In our review of the district court's decision, we apply the standards of section 17A.19 to the agency's decision to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Iowa 2000). We will affirm if our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001).
IV. Analysis .
Hentges claims he suffered a cumulative injury to his right shoulder at work. Under a cumulative injury analysis, a compensable injury occurs when pain prevents the employee from continuing to work. McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368, 374 (Iowa 1985). The injury must arise out of and in the course of one's employment to be compensable. Iowa Code § 85.20. The record does not reflect that Hentges missed any work at KOFAB because of pain in his right shoulder. In his response to interrogatory number four, Hentges stated he had "sometimes daily and sometimes weekly" pain and discomfort after his hernia surgery "and with continuing shoulder problems" so he sought other work. The response to interrogatory number twelve includes the statement, "[t]he pain in my right shoulder occurs often when doing overhead work and when I do a lot of the lathe work." The notations concerning right shoulder pain in the doctors' office visit notes show Hentges claimed the problem was related to his work. Substantial evidence supports the findings of the commissioner. We affirm on this issue.
Before he resigned from KOFAB in July 1994, Hentges secured other, similar employment. He has not had any medical treatment of his right shoulder since May 1993. It does not appear from the record he has missed any work or suffered any loss in earning capacity because of his right shoulder. Substantial evidence supports the findings of the commissioner. We affirm on this issue.
AFFIRMED.