Chiafos v. Municipal Fire & Police Retirement System of Iowa

• Decision Date: 24 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 97-660,97-660
• Citation: 591 N.W.2d 199
• Parties: Robert D. CHIAFOS, Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL FIRE & POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF IOWA, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 199

591 N.W.2d 199

Robert D. CHIAFOS, Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL FIRE & POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF IOWA, Appellee.

No. 97-660.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 24, 1999.

Charles E. Gribble and Patricia M. Hulting of Roehrick, Hulting, Blumberg, Kirlin & Krull, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Alice E. Helle and Douglas E. Gross of Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, CARTER, NEUMAN, and CADY, JJ.

HARRIS, Justice.

A former police officer believes he is entitled to accidental disability benefits, not merely to the lesser ordinary disability benefits. The administrative agency, the municipal fire and police retirement system of Iowa, rejected his claim and the district court affirmed the rejection. We also affirm, and vacate a contrary determination by the court of appeals.

Robert Chiafos was a police officer for Marion, Iowa, from December 1968 to March 1995. He applied for accidental disability benefits under Iowa Code section 411.6(5) (1997). ¹ Accidental benefits are greater than ordinary benefits provided under Iowa Code section 411.6(3). ² See City of Cedar Rapids v. Board of Trustees of Mun. Fire & Police Retirement Sys. of Iowa, 572 N.W.2d 919, 922 (Iowa 1998). The board for the retirement system rejected the application after determining Chiafos failed to prove that his disability was caused by performance of his police duties at a definite time and place. The district court, reviewing the matter on Chiafos' petition for certiorari, affirmed the board. The matter is before us on further review from a court of appeals decision reversing the district court. The court of appeals found the board had set an incorrect standard for determining causation. Because we think the board applied the correct standard we vacate the court of appeals decision and affirm the district court.

I. Iowa Code chapter 411 (1997) provides no appeal procedure, so a certiorari action is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the actions of a pension board. Moon v. Board of Trustees of Mun. Fire & Police Retirement Sys. of Iowa, 548 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Iowa 1996). For the writ of certiorari to be sustained, the plaintiff must show that the board acted "illegally" in that it failed to act in accordance with a statute or that its decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. City of Cedar Rapids v. Municipal Fire & Police Retirement Sys. of Iowa, 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Norland v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904, 913 (Iowa 1987)). Evidence is still substantial even though it would have supported contrary inferences. Id.

II. We have said: "[a]ccording to section 411.6(5), three basic issues are usually present in an accidental disability claim: (1) permanent incapacity; (2) causation by a work duty; and (3) 'injury' or 'disease.' " City of Cedar Rapids, 572 N.W.2d at 922. Without question Chiafos suffers a permanent incapacity. The question is whether the record supports the board's finding that he failed to establish the second (causation) or third (injury) conditions. We can pass the third issue because the record clearly supports the finding Chiafos failed to establish that his disability resulted from an injury at a definite time and place.

Chiafos listed seven significant physical traumas he experienced during his employment as a police officer:

1. On December 21, 1972, Chiafos fell backwards onto a frozen snow bank with a two-hundred-pound man on top of him.

2. In 1974, Chiafos suffered a severe leg injury and an upper back injury as the result of a foot pursuit.

3. In 1973 or 1974, Chiafos was hit in the shoulders by a heavy object while trying to break up a bar room brawl.

4. In 1973 or 1974, Chiafos was put into a headlock by a suspect involved in a high-speed pursuit.

5. On November 14, 1975, Chiafos was assaulted by a woman who hit him very hard on the right rear of his head. During this incident Chiafos' wedding ring was knocked off by the force used.

6. On January 18, 1976, Chiafos was punched in the face with closed fists by a suspect and suffered a black eye, split lip, and fractured sinuses.

7. In May 1985, while attending the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, as a part of his job training, Chiafos was hit at the base of his skull by an elbow and, though he didn't recollect any pain or discomfort, he remembered the distinct sound of his vertebrae cracking.

(In March 1995, Chiafos had surgery to repair a herniated disk. After the surgery, his doctor would not release him to full-time employment as a police officer because he was susceptible to future neck injury.)

The seven listed incidents, not unusual in the often violent experience of police officers, undoubtedly caused serious wear and tear on Chiafos' body. But the statute requires something more in order to qualify for the higher disability benefits that can be traced to a duty injury at some definite time and place. That something more is not satisfied by merely pointing to a series of injuries that heal before the next injury occurs. To qualify for accidental disability benefits, the applicant must prove the injury is the result of a specific work-related accident or incident. Branson v. Municipal Fire & Police Retirement Sys. of Iowa, 591 N.W.2d 193, 194, 1999 WL 160019 (Iowa 1999).

Chiafos himself admitted his various injuries "almost always would improve." It is even more significant that Chiafos' key witness conceded his inability to conclude Chiafos' injuries occurred at some definite time and place. The district court's ruling summarized the testimony this way:

In support of his claim Chiafos also offered the deposition testimony of his neurosurgeon Dr. Loren J. Mouw. Dr. Mouw was questioned at length about the potential causes of Chiafos' neck problems, but he was unable to point to any specific injury which caused Chiafos' condition. He testified that Chiafos' spine "showed evidence of multiple injuries over time and also had an acute episode with the disk herniation," and that it was "not a typical looking spine, it's one that's shown years of, you know, culmination of abuse or misuse." He also stated that given the events recounted by Chiafos, it "would not surprise" him that Chiafos later developed degenerative disk...