Bridgestone Am's. v. Anderson

1

Bridgestone Americas, Inc., and Old Republic Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Charles Anderson, Appellee.

No. 22-1328

Supreme Court of Iowa

March 29, 2024

Submitted February 20, 2024

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty District Judge.

An employer appeals a district court order affirming a decision of the workers' compensation commissioner.

Alison E. Stewart (argued), Timothy W. Wegman, and Jordan R Gehlhaar (until withdrawal) of Peddicord Wharton, LLP, West Des Moines, for appellant.

Channing L. Dutton (argued) of Lawyer, Lawyer, Dutton, Drake &Conklin, LLP, Urbandale, for appellee.

Terri C. Davis and Teresa B. Morio. Shuttleworth &Ingersoll, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for amicus curiae The Iowa Association of Business and Industry.

MAY JUSTICE.

After decades of hard manual labor, an employee reported a right shoulder injury and a right arm injury to his employer. Then the employee pursued a workers' compensation action. The deputy workers' compensation commissioner awarded compensation, and the workers' compensation commissioner affirmed the award. The employer sought judicial review. The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. The employer then filed this appeal. On appeal, the employer poses three questions:

1. Was the commissioner correct in finding that the injuries are compensable?

2. Was the commissioner correct in finding that the injuries should be compensated as unscheduled injuries under Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(v) (2021)?

3. Was the commissioner correct in calculating compensation?

We only reach the first two questions. We conclude:

1. The injuries are compensable; but

2. The injuries are scheduled injuries under Iowa Code section 85.34(2), paragraphs (m) and (n).

In light of these conclusions, we affirm in part, we reverse in part, and we remand for determination of compensation for the employee's scheduled injuries.

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

Charles Anderson was sixty-eight years old at the time of his workers' compensation hearing. He has spent most of his life working for Bridgestone. His first day of work was March 1, 1974. His last day of work was October 31, 2018.

All of Anderson's jobs at Bridgestone involved physical work. During his last thirty-five years at Bridgestone, Anderson worked as a tire builder. Tire building is particularly difficult work. The deputy commissioner summarized the evidence this way:

Bridgestone made tires which varied in size from passenger tires to tractor tires. However, in the 1980's they stopped making passenger tires and since that time, have made all heavy-duty tractor tires. Mr. Anderson testified that a tire builder had to be strong, have strong hands, and had to constantly fight through problems. In his job as a tire builder, he had to use both hands and both feet at the same time. While performing his job, he had to put both arms up approximately 7 feet and to tear ply both directions. Some plies tore easily; some tore really hard; it depended on the gauge or thickness of the ply. A tire builder had to hold his hands and arms out in front of them to tear the plies. If the ply was too thick, then the builder had to cut the material with a hot knife, which involved the same motion of the upper extremities, but while holding a knife. Mr. Anderson described work that involved intense use of his hands and upper extremities and considerable hand and finger strength. His work also involved the use of his hands and upper extremities away from his torso.

Anderson's decades of labor led to an injury to his right shoulder and an injury to his right arm. Anderson brought these injuries to Bridgestone's attention on October 31, 2018. That day, Anderson saw the company doctor, Dr. Troll. Dr. Troll noted "wear and tear degenerative changes" in Anderson's right shoulder. After a second visit, Dr. Troll suggested that Anderson should see his own physician.

Anderson then saw his primary care physician, Dr. Harrison. Dr. Harrison noted that although Anderson had suffered no acute injury, Anderson's symptoms could be the product of an overuse injury related to his occupation.

Dr. Harrison referred Anderson to Dr. Davick, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Davick ordered an MRI of Anderson's right shoulder. The imaging revealed muscle tearing, including a near-full-thickness tear to the rotator cuff. Dr. Davick performed surgery on Anderson's right shoulder in February 2019. It was Dr. Davick's opinion that Anderson's shoulder injury had been caused by his work as a tire builder.

Anderson continued to have numbness and tingling in his right hand. So Dr. Davick referred Anderson to Dr. Rodgers, who is also an orthopedic specialist. In October 2019, Rodgers performed a carpal tunnel release and ulnar nerve transposition on Anderson's right arm.

Anderson brought a workers' compensation action against Bridgestone. Anderson alleged injuries to his "right arm and shoulder." He stated that his injury date was "10/31/18."

Anderson's attorney sent him to Dr. Stoken. In a written report, Dr. Stoken tied Anderson's injuries to his employment.

An arbitration hearing was held in 2021. The deputy concluded that Anderson had suffered compensable permanent injuries to his right arm and right shoulder. The deputy also concluded that Anderson's injuries should be treated as unscheduled injuries under Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(v) and that Anderson's compensation should be calculated based on his loss of future earning capacity. Specifically, the deputy found that Anderson had sustained a fifty percent loss of future earning capacity. The deputy awarded compensation on that basis.

Bridgestone appealed to the commissioner. The commissioner affirmed the deputy's arbitration decision in its entirety.

Bridgestone then filed a petition for judicial review in the district court. The district court affirmed the commissioner's appeal decision.

Bridgestone then appealed to this court. We retained the appeal. Iowa R. App. P. 6.1101(2); Iowa Ct. R. 21.21.

II. Analysis.

A. Issues on Appeal.

As mentioned, Bridgestone raises three issues on appeal. First, Bridgestone contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the commission's finding that Anderson's injuries were caused by his employment and, therefore, compensable. Second, Bridgestone contends that the commission erred in concluding that Anderson's injuries should be compensated as unscheduled injuries rather than scheduled injuries. Third, Bridgestone contends that the commission's award was excessive. We address the issues in turn although, as mentioned, we only reach the first two.

B. Causal Relationship.

The first issue is whether the commissioner erred in determining that Anderson's injuries were compensable. As to this issue, we see no grounds to reverse the commissioner's determinations.

Under our workers' compensation statute, employers must pay compensation to employees for "personal injuries . . . arising out of and in the course of the employment." Iowa Code § 85.3(1). This causal inquiry presents questions of fact that are "vested in the discretion of the" commissioner. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839, 844-45 (Iowa 2011). We affirm the commissioner's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. Mid Am. Constr. LLC v. Sandlin, 2 N.W.3d 838, 846 (Iowa 2024). Note that evidence may be substantial even if "different conclusions may be drawn from the evidence" and, indeed, even if "we may have drawn a different conclusion as fact finder." Pease, 807 N.W.2d at 845; accord Sandlin, 2 N.W.3d at 846. "Our task, therefore, is not to determine whether the evidence supports a different finding; rather, our task is to determine whether substantial evidence, viewing the record as a whole, supports the findings actually made." Pease, 807 N.W.2d at 845.

Following our review of the record as a whole, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the commissioner's findings here. Dr. Troll, Dr. Harrison, Dr. Stoken, and Dr. Davick all tied Anderson's shoulder injury to Anderson's employment. And Dr. Stoken's report can be interpreted as tying both injuries to Anderson's employment. These expert opinions provided substantial evidence to support the commissioner's finding that Anderson's injuries were caused by his employment.

Bridgestone points to inconsistencies in Anderson's comments to treaters and also in Anderson's testimony. But "credibility determinations in workers' compensation claims are within the domain of the commissioner as trier of fact." Id. at 847. Moreover, "[m]edical causation 'is essentially within the domain of expert testimony'" and "[u]ltimately, . . . the determination of whether to accept or reject an expert opinion is within the 'peculiar province' of the commissioner." Id. at 845 (first quoting Dunlavey v. Econ. Fire &Cas. Co., 526 N.W.2d 845, 853 (Iowa 1995); and then quoting Deaver v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 170 N.W.2d 455, 464 (Iowa 1969)). And here, at least, we see no grounds to second guess the commissioner's reliance on the expert opinions mentioned above.

Substantial evidence supports the commissioner's findings of causation and, therefore, compensability. The district court was correct to affirm those findings.

C. Scheduled or Unscheduled.

We now address the central issue in this case: Was the commissioner correct in concluding that the injuries should be compensated as unscheduled injuries under Iowa Code section 85.34(2), paragraph (v)? Or should the commissioner have ruled that they are scheduled injuries under Iowa Code section 85.34(2), paragraphs (m) and (n)?

1. Standard of review.

Before diving into the merits, though, we note that special...