Catic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 013020 IAWC, 5065604

Case DateJanuary 30, 2020
CourtIowa
ISMET CATIC, Claimant
v.
TYSON FOODS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured, Defendant.
No. 5065604
Iowa Workers Compensation
Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner
January 30, 2020
         Head Notes: 1108.50; 1801; 1802; 1804; 1703; 2501;2502; 4100           APPEAL DECISION           JOSEPH S. CORTESE II WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER          Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc., self-insured employer, appeals from an arbitration decision filed on August 10, 2018. Claimant Ismet Catic responds to the appeal. The case was heard on May 9, 2018, and it was considered fully submitted in front of the deputy workers' compensation commissioner on May 30, 2018.          In the arbitration decision, the deputy commissioner found claimant's neck, low back, and bilateral shoulder, arm, forearm, wrist and hand conditions were cumulative, work-related injuries that arose out of and in the course of his employment with defendant. As a result of those injuries, the deputy commissioner found claimant was an odd-lot worker entitled to an award of permanent total disability. The deputy commissioner also awarded claimant medical expenses for the work-related conditions. Lastly, the deputy commissioner found claimant was entitled to reimbursement for the independent medical examination (IME) of Farid Manshadi, M.D., and awarded costs for the report of Arnold Delbridge, M.D.          On appeal, defendant argues claimant failed to satisfy his burden to prove he sustained work-related injuries to any body part other than his right elbow. Defendant additionally asserts claimant is not permanently and totally disabled under either the traditional industrial disability analysis or the odd-lot analysis, and defendant seeks a credit if claimant is found to be less than permanently totally disabled. Lastly, defendant appeals the deputy commissioner's award of medical expenses and the cost assessment.          Those portions of the proposed agency decision pertaining to issues not raised on appeal are adopted as a part of this appeal decision.          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 10, 2018, that relate to the issues properly raised on intra-agency appeal are affirmed in part with additional findings and analysis and modified in part.          With respect to whether claimant sustained work-related injuries to any body part beyond his right elbow, defendant takes particular issue with the deputy commissioner's decision to give the opinions of Robert Gordon, M.D., less weight than the opinions of Dr. Delbridge and Dr. Manshadi. In this case, however, none of the expert opinions were without flaws, including those of Dr. Gordon. The deputy commissioner appropriately and adequately addressed those flaws and provided her rationale for giving Dr. Gordon's opinions less weight. (See Arbitration Decision, p. 14) I adopt that rationale and affirm the deputy commissioner's determination to give Dr. Gordon's opinion less weight than the opinions of Dr. Delbridge and Dr. Manshadi.          Defendant asserts on appeal that the deputy commissioner misrepresented and manipulated Dr. Gordon's hearing testimony. Defendant is correct that the deputy commissioner made a mistake by attributing 30 percent of Dr. Gordon's practice to the treatment of defendant's employees when he actually testified to 15 percent. This, however, appears to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT