Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., SNAP-ON
| Decision Date | 22 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | SNAP-ON,No. 94-212,94-212 |
| Citation | 529 N.W.2d 267 |
| Parties | Patricia TERWILLIGER, Appellant, v.TOOLS CORPORATION, Employer, and Royal Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mark S. Soldat, Algona, for appellant.
Paul C. Thune of Peddicord, Wharton, Thune & Spencer, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
In response to the petition for rehearing filed by the appellant on March 10, 1995, the court en banc, hereby amends the opinion filed in this case on February 22, 1995. A copy of the opinion as so amended is attached to this order.
The petition for rehearing is considered with respect to the opinion as now revised and is denied.
/s/ Bruce M. Snell, Jr.
Bruce M. Snell, Jr.
Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and LARSON, CARTER, LAVORATO, and SNELL, JJ.
[Filed Feb. 22, 1995]
Patricia A. Terwilliger appeals a district court affirmance of a decision of the industrial commissioner which granted her workers' compensation benefits for work-related impairment to her hands. The district court held that the commissioner properly weighed conflicting medical and lay evidence in arriving at his impairment determination and detailed his analysis methodology so that the court could engage in proper judicial review. The trial court then held that the commissioner based his decision on substantial evidence. On appeal, Terwilliger asserts that we should engage in a more scrutinizing analysis than that in which courts of this state have traditionally engaged when reviewing decisions of the industrial commissioner. We affirm.
Terwilliger began working for the Snap-On Tools Corporation in December of 1973. She initially began her employment as an electrical assembler but in 1978 was promoted to the position of "lead worker." As a lead worker, she did not work on an assembly line, but instead trained other workers and set up individual work stations.
Terwilliger first began to experience pain in 1978 after lifting a box. In 1978 on three different occasions, she reported pain in her neck, chest, and shoulder blades and tingling and numbness in her fingers. From 1978 to 1983, she experienced pain in her fingers, back, and neck at different times, and though she received medical treatment as a result of some of the incidents, she missed no work during this time.
On October 2, 1984, Terwilliger reported pain in her right wrist and arm while working and subsequently was off work until October 15, 1984 due to inflammation of her right shoulder joint. From October 9, 1984 to October 18, 1984, she complained of headaches. On January 23, 1985, she hit a deer while driving her vehicle and suffered a whiplash injury to her neck, left shoulder, and hand. She returned to work after this incident on February 11, 1985.
On March 21, 1985, Terwilliger reported hand numbness, right and left elbow pain, and tingling in her leg. She missed work as a result of this pain until May 13, 1985. During this absence, at least three doctors treated her and diagnosed her as suffering from ailments including either work-related carpal tunnel syndrome or tendonitis, musculoskeletal pain with functional overlay, and hysterical neurosis. In April of 1985, Dr. Jack L. Dodd performed a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test (MMPI) on Terwilliger, and Dr. Michael J. Kitchell examined her. Dr. Kitchell noted that the MMPI was very abnormal, consistent with a conversion reaction, and that individuals with such a profile develop physical symptoms as a reaction to mental or environmental stress. From December of 1985 to May of 1987, Terwilliger reported pain in her neck and right side, fingers, wrist, and elbow.
As a result of the difficulties with her fingers, wrists, and elbows, she missed work from August 24, 1987 to February 22, 1988. During this time, she underwent two carpal tunnel surgeries. After the surgeries, in May of 1988, Dr. Ronald S. Bergman evaluated Terwilliger's impairment as permanent partial impairment of two percent to her right hand and one percent to her left hand.
In February and March of 1988, she complained of pain in her hands, arms, shoulders, and neck and received treatment for pain in her leg, shoulder, and elbow as well as treatment for anxiety and depression. In late March of 1988, Dr. Alfredo D. Socarras observed her, and stated that she suffered from a large functional element and advised her to quit working. After conducting tests of both of her upper extremities, Dr. Socarras concluded that she did not suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
Dr. Michael W. Crane observed Terwilliger for Snap-On and the Royal Insurance Company in June of 1988. He concluded that she suffered from a "tendonitis type chronic pain picture" and concluded that she was not at that time suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Crane assigned her a rating of permanent partial impairment of three percent to each hand and also treated her for depression. Dr. Crane was unable to find any objective evidence of shoulder or neck impairment or pain.
On June 9, 1988, Terwilliger filed four petitions seeking workers' compensation benefits which named Snap-On and Royal Insurance as Snap-On's insurance carrier. Three of these petitions alleged injuries to Terwilliger's upper extremities, shoulders, and neck occurring in 1984, 1985, and 1988. The fourth petition alleged injury to her legs.
The Iowa Deputy Industrial Commissioner heard this case on September 5, 1989. During this hearing, Terwilliger dismissed her petition which sought recovery for injury to her legs. Following the hearing, the deputy commissioner held that the statute of limitations barred Terwilliger's claims which allegedly arose from injuries in 1984 and 1985.
On the issue of Terwilliger's sole remaining claim, she presented at the hearing the testimony of six lay witnesses who stated that they had observed that her hands were swollen when she returned to work following the carpal tunnel surgery. The lay witnesses further testified that they observed that Terwilliger experienced difficulty in using her hands and fingers and that her ability to perform work tasks suffered considerable impairment.
Despite the lay testimony, the deputy commissioner placed greater reliance on the medical evidence presented at the hearing. The deputy commissioner held that Terwilliger sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome to her right and left hands as a result of cumulative work-related injury which resulted from an accident which occurred on August 24, 1987. The deputy held that the injury resulted in a three percent impairment to each of Terwilliger's hands and this translated to a four percent injury of her whole body for purposes of determining the proper award of permanent partial disability benefits. The deputy commissioner subsequently awarded Terwilliger twenty weeks of permanent partial disability benefits and twenty-eight weeks of healing period benefits.
Terwilliger then filed a sixty-four page petition for rehearing. Rehearing was denied and appeal of the deputy industrial commissioner's decision was taken to the Iowa Industrial Commissioner.
Twenty challenges to the deputy commissioner's decision were made before the industrial commissioner. The commissioner affirmed the deputy's finding that Terwilliger sustained a work injury on August 24, 1987 when her bilateral carpal tunnel injury caused her to miss work. The commissioner ultimately adopted the deputy commissioner's findings regarding permanent partial disability and healing period benefits but increased the weekly sums for these benefits from $167.54 to $253.05 due to a determination that the deputy had used an improperly low hourly pay rate. The commissioner further held that Terwilliger was not entitled to industrial disability benefits because her injury was limited to her hands and wrists and did not extend to her body as a whole. In addition, the commissioner held: (1) Terwilliger failed to carry her burden to prove that a work injury caused her neck and shoulder pain; and (2) penalty benefits were not appropriate because the delay in payment of benefits to Terwilliger was not unreasonable.
Terwilliger sought judicial review of the industrial commissioner's ruling. The district court held that the industrial commissioner failed to indicate whether he had considered all relevant evidence in the record in determining the extent of functional impairment to Terwilliger's hands. The court therefore remanded to the agency with instructions that it should evaluate all germane impairment evidence including a possible preexisting psychological condition in reaching its impairment determination. The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision in all other respects and taxed the costs of the appeal three-fourths to Terwilliger.
Terwilliger appealed the district court's decision and the court of appeals affirmed the district court and remanded the case back to the industrial commissioner. The court of appeals taxed the costs of the appeal to Terwilliger. On remand, the industrial commissioner affirmed the previous holding of the industrial commissioner and noted specifically that he had considered the lay witness testimony but the medical evidence was more reliable than the lay testimony. The commissioner considered lay testimony suspect due to the possibility that Terwilliger had magnified her symptoms. The commissioner held that the record included insufficient reliable evidence to support a finding that the extent of Terwilliger's impairment exceeded the amount of impairment the medical evaluations suggested. The commissioner further held that insufficient evidence existed to support a finding that Terwilliger suffered from a preexisting psychological condition prior to her August 24, 1987 injury or that if such an injury did exist a scheduled injury caused or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc.
...The question before us is whether the evidence supports the findings the commissioner actually made. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1995). We conclude that it does. We also conclude the commissioner's application of these facts to the law is not irrational, il......
-
Perkins v. HEA of Iowa, Inc.
...the record made before the agency. Gates v. John Deere Ottumwa Works, 587 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1998) (citing Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1995)). The industrial commissioner found that Perkins was put on "inquiry notice" at the time she was advised of the s......
-
Clay v. Dep't of Education
...commissioner's right to reject any evidence she considers less reliable than other contradictory testimony. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 273 (Iowa 1995). The weight to be given such an opinion is for the finder of fact, in this case the commissioner, and that may be a......
-
Gallo v. Penford Prods. Co.
...the commissioner to discuss each and every fact in the record and explain why or why not he has rejected it.” Terwilliger v. Snap–On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 274 (Iowa 1995). “Such a requirement would be unnecessary and burdensome.” Id. The commissioner's decision not to rely on these o......