No. 5-364 / 04-1643Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed August 17, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, William J. Pattinson, Judge.
A claimant appeals from a district court judicial review decision affirming the workers’ compensation commissioner’s decision denying permanent disability benefits. AFFIRMED.
Theodore Hoglan, Marshalltown, for appellant.
Patrick McNulty of Grefe Sidney, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Following a March 19, 2002 arbitration hearing a deputy workers’ compensation commissioner ruled the claimant Lynne Hildreth had not met her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence she had sustained an injury that arose out of and in the course of her employment. On intra-agency appeal the workers’ compensation commissioner summarily affirmed. On judicial review the district court affirmed the commissioner’s decision. Hildreth appeals.
Hildreth claims the district court “erred in affirming the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission in determining that the Petitioner-Appellant failed to show that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.” Hildreth does not cite any one or more of the grounds of error listed in Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) (2001) as the basis of her claim of agency and district court error. However, the essence of her claim is that the agency’s determination she did not prove an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed as a whole. See Iowa Code §17A.19(10)(f). Our scope and standards of review involving claims that determinations of fact are not supported by substantial evidence in the record have been set forth and discussed in several recent cases and need not be repeated here. See, e.g., Clark v. Vicorp Restaurants, Inc., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, (Iowa 2005); Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 463-65 (Iowa 2004); P.D.S.I. v. Peterson, 685 N.W.2d 627, 632-33 (Iowa 2004).
After twenty years of other health-care-related employment Hildreth worked as a licensed practical nurse for Villa Del Sol Health Center from July 1989 to February 22, 2000, at which time she was fifty-three years of age. She began having pain in her right hand in 1995. In 1996 she consulted with her family physician, Dr. Friedrich, with whom she treated from time to time over the next four years. Dr. Friedrich’s primary diagnosis, supported by radiographic studies, was at all times that Hildreth had osteoarthritis with related degenerative changes. Although perhaps not of importance, it is worth noting that nothing in Dr. Friedrich’s records at any time indicated a belief on his part that Hildreth’s condition was work-related, or that Hildreth attributed her condition or symptoms to work activities.
In February 2000, based on her hand and thumb problems Hildreth applied for disability benefits. When asked if her disability resulted from employment she answered, “No.” Dr. Friedrich opined that her condition was not “due to injury or sickness arising out of [Hildreth’s] employment.” Hildreth began seeing Dr. Berger at the Mayo Clinic in June 2000, and he performed surgery on both of her hands. Although again not of great importance, it is worth noting that nothing in Dr. Berger’s records from June 2000 through April 2001 indicates that Hildreth (or Dr. Berger) attributed Hildreth’s condition to her work activities.
Hildreth argues that the agency ignored her testimony and did not give due weight to an opinion expressed by Dr. Berger in September 2001 that Hildreth’s employment had resulted in “symptomatic aggravation” of her arthritic and inflammatory condition. However, “the question is not whether the evidence might support a different finding, but whether it supports the findings actually made.” St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Iowa 2000). We “should broadly and liberally apply those findings to uphold, rather than defeat, the [worker’s compensation] commissioner’s decision.” Id.
Dr. Berger had ultimately expressed an opinion that Hildreth’s arthritic symptoms had been aggravated by her employment. However, Dr. Friedrich had opined that Hildreth’s injury did not arise out of her employment and his four-plus years of medical records contain nothing to the contrary. Hildreth herself until at least mid-2001 does not appear to have suggested her problems might be work-related, and in February 2000 she affirmatively asserted they were not work-related. There was thus conflicting evidence on the question of whether Hildreth’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The commissioner, and not the court, weighs the evidence. Kiesecker v. Webster City Meats, Inc., 528 N.W.2d 109, 111 (Iowa 1995). We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s determination Hildreth did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. We therefore affirm the district court judgment upholding the commissioner’s decision.
AFFIRMED.