EARL "BUTCH" UMBLE, Claimant
v.
PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Employer, Self-Insured, Defendant.
No. 5065077
Iowa Workers Compensation
Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner
March 23, 2020
Head
Note Nos. 1803, 1108, 1108.50
APPEAL DECISION
JENNIFER S. GERRISH-LAMPE, DEPUTY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSIONER
Defendant
Principal Life Insurance Company, self-insured employer,
appeals from an arbitration decision filed on August 13,
2018. Claimant Earl "Butch" Umble, filed a cross
appeal. The case was heard on July 3, 2018, and it was
considered fully submitted in front of the deputy
worker's compensation commissioner on July 23, 2018.
In the
arbitration decision, the deputy commissioner found that the
claimant sustained a permanent disability arising out of
pre-existing conditions to claimant's arthritic hip and
the degenerative condition in claimant's back. Because of
this permanent disability, claimant was awarded 15 percent
industrial disability. Further, the deputy commissioner
awarded medical benefits and pages one through nine of the
attachment to the hearing report and mileage corresponding to
the medical visits contained in aforementioned pages one
through nine.
On
appeal, defendant asserts the finding that there was a
permanent aggravation of claimant's pre-existing
conditions was erroneous and that the 15 percent industrial
disability was excessive. Claimant cross appeals on the basis
that the award of 15 percent industrial disability was too
modest.
I
performed a de novo review of the evidentiary record and the
detailed arguments of the parties. Pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 17A.5 and 86.24, those portions of the proposed
arbitration decision filed on August 13, 2018, that relate to
the issues properly raised on intra-agency appeal are
affirmed in full.
Defendant's
primary complaint regarding the permanency finding is that
the deputy erroneously relied upon the opinion of Sunil
Bansal, M.D. over that of Steven Aviles, M.D.
The
question of causal connection is essentially within the
domain of expert testimony. The expert medical evidence must
be considered with all other evidence introduced bearing on
the causal connection between the injury and the disability.
Supportive lay testimony may be used to buttress the expert
testimony and, therefore, is also relevant and material to
the causation question. The weight to be given to an expert...
