Sanchez v. Blue Bird Midwest, 95-0370
| Decision Date | 26 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-0370,95-0370 |
| Citation | 554 N.W.2d 283 |
| Parties | Joseph SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BLUE BIRD MIDWEST, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
James P. Hoffman, Keokuk, for appellant.
Brian L. Yung of Bennett, Crimmins & Yung, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HABHAB and HUITINK, JJ.
Claimant Joseph Sanchez appeals the district court's affirmance of the industrial commissioner's finding of no causal connection between his work injury and an alleged disability. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the commissioner's finding and we affirm.
Sanchez was working for Blue Bird Midwest (Blue Bird) on January 8, 1991, when he slipped and fell on his right side and hip while pushing an 800-pound carriage used to move busses through a production line. Sanchez immediately felt pain but continued to work. The next day Sanchez had difficulty getting out of bed, but he reported for work. Sanchez testified he told his supervisor three to four days later about the injury.
On January 15, Sanchez was sent to see Dr. Readinger. Readinger determined Sanchez had acute right lower back strain. X-rays of the hip and lower back indicated Sanchez had an old chip fracture at the anterior upper portion of the L-5 level. Sanchez was off work for approximately two weeks and received workers' compensation benefits for this period of time. He was released to return to work at "full duty" on January 28, 1991.
On August 28, 1991, Sanchez was laid off work, along with approximately thirty-five other Blue Bird employees. From the time of his January 28 return to work until the layoff, Sanchez had not missed any work due to back pain nor did his medical records indicate he sought any further treatment for his injury. The testimony of his co-worker and supervisor indicated he did not mention any continued back pain to them after he returned to work on January 28.
Sanchez went to work for Fruehauf within a week of his layoff at Blue Bird. He testified he performed "very physical work" at Fruehauf. Sanchez saw a chiropractor for treatment for back pain in September 1991 after he experienced "complications" while working at Fruehauf. In December 1991, Sanchez again saw Dr. Readinger. Readinger believed Sanchez had lower back pain with some symptoms suggestive of a possible herniated lumbar disc. He recommended Sanchez be seen by an orthopedic specialist.
In April 1992, Sanchez was examined by Dr. Hart. Hart concluded Sanchez's chronic low back pain was work-related. An MRI indicated Sanchez had a large central annular protrusion at the L4-5 level. On August 5, 1992, Dr. Hart wrote to Sanchez's attorney and gave his opinion that Sanchez had a seven percent impairment due to his back condition.
Dr. Hart's medical records indicate Sanchez had no history of low back pain prior to his January 8, 1991 fall. However, Sanchez testified before the deputy commissioner he had been treated by a chiropractor in 1990 for problems with his right hip. He also admitted he had been injured in 1985 when he was kicked in his right hip. Dr. Hart's records do not indicate he was aware of these prior problems.
Following a February 1993 arbitration hearing, the deputy industrial commissioner found Sanchez's disability was related to his work injury at Blue Bird. The deputy commissioner awarded Sanchez medical expenses, permanent partial disability for 250 weeks, and healing period benefits from August 29, 1991 through July 9, 1992.
Blue Bird appealed. The industrial commissioner determined Sanchez had not presented reliable or sufficient medical evidence to prove his January 8, 1991 work injury caused him any disability after the termination of his employment on August 28, 1991, and reversed the deputy commissioner's decision. Sanchez filed a petition for judicial review. The district court found substantial evidence supported the industrial commissioner's decision and affirmed.
We review decisions of the industrial commissioner for errors of law and do not exercise de novo review. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1995). When we review findings of the industrial commissioner, those findings carry the effect of a jury verdict. Id. We will reverse an agency's findings only if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we determine substantial evidence does not support them. Id. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the conclusion at issue. Id.
The mere fact we could draw inconsistent conclusions from the same evidence does not mean substantial evidence does not support the commissioner's determinations. Id. The ultimate question is not whether the evidence supports a different finding, but whether it supports the findings the commissioner actually made. Id.
The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the disability on which he now bases his claim is causally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Sauer, No. 7-355/06-0762 (Iowa App. 10/12/2007)
...testimony, even if uncontroverted, may be accepted or rejected in whole or in part by the trier of fact." Sanchez v. Blue Bird Midwest, 554 N.W.2d 283, 285 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). The district court made extensive findings. He found, among other things, that Eric had complied with all the req......
-
In the Interest of S.S., No. 9-656/09-0216 (Iowa App. 10/7/2009)
...had accelerant on her hands and clothing as identified by the detection of an accelerant sniffing dog." Sanchez v. Blue Bird Midwest, 554 N.W.2d 283, 285 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) ("Expert opinion testimony, even if uncontroverted, may be accepted or rejected in whole or in part by trier of IV. ......
-
SCHUTJER v. ALGONA MANOR CARE CENTER
...in part." Id. (quoting Sherman v. Pella Corp., 576 N.W.2d 312, 321 (Iowa 1998) (citations omitted)); accord Sanchez v. Blue Bird Midwest, 554 N.W.2d 283, 285 (Iowa Ct. App.1996) ("Expert opinion testimony, even if uncontroverted, may be accepted or rejected in whole or in part by the trier ......
-
Arrowood v. Maytag Co.
...on which the claim is based is causally related to injuriesarising out of and in the course of employment. Sanchez v. Blue Bird Midwest, 554 N.W.2d 283, 285 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). "The question of causal connection is essentially within the domain of expert testimony." Id. As the trier of fa......