Guerrero v. Rodriguez, 021920 IAWC, 5067259

• Case Date: February 19, 2020
• Court: Iowa

VICTOR GUERRERO, Claimant v. FABIAN GALVAN RODRIGUEZ, Employer, Defendant. No. 5067259 Iowa Workers Compensation Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner February 19, 2020          Head Notes: 1402.30, 1402.40, 1803, 1803.01, 2206, 2209           ARBITRATION DECISION           WILLIAM H. GRELL DEPUTY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          Victor Guerrero, claimant, filed a petition for arbitration against Fabian Galvan Rodriguez, as the employer. Mr. Rodriguez did not have worker’s compensation insurance in place at the time of claimant’s injury and is considered uninsured for purposes of this hearing. (Rodriguez Testimony) This case came before the undersigned for an arbitration hearing on February 7, 2020 in Davenport, Iowa.          The parties filed a hearing report in each file at the commencement of the hearing. On those hearing reports, the parties entered into numerous stipulations. Those stipulations were accepted by the hearing deputy and no factual or legal issues relative to the parties’ stipulations will be made or discussed. The parties are now bound by their stipulations. Claimant testified on his own behalf and called his girlfriend, Claudia Mendoza, to testify. Defendant, Fabian Rodriguez, testified. The parties offered Joint Exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Guerrero offered Claimant’s Exhibits 1 through 10. The employer offered Defendant’s Exhibits A through E. All offered exhibits were received without objection. The evidentiary record closed at the end of the arbitration hearing and the case was considered fully submitted to the undersigned.          ISSUES          The parties submitted the following disputed issues for resolution:          1. The extent of claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.          2. Whether claimant is entitled to payment, reimbursement, or satisfaction of past medical expenses contained in Claimant’s Exhibit 6.          3. Whether claimant is entitled to medical mileage reimbursement, as alleged and summarized in Claimant’s Exhibit 7.          4. Whether defendant is entitled to a credit for medical expenses paid and for compensation allegedly paid to claimant after the injury date.          5. Whether claimant is entitled to an award of penalty benefits for an unreasonable delay or denial of weekly benefits.          6. Whether costs should be assessed against either party and, if so, in what amount.          FINDINGS OF FACT          The undersigned, having considered all of the evidence and testimony in the record, finds:

Victor Guerrero sustained a left arm injury when he fell off a roof while performing roofing work for his employer, Fabian Galvan Rodriguez, on September 14, 2017. (Hearing Report) As a result of that work injury, Mr. Guerrero sustained a fractured left arm and required medical care. (Joint Exhibits 1-2) The employer paid for some of claimant’s medical care. (Hearing Report)

         However, the employer has not paid for the medical expenses outlined in Claimant’s Exhibit 6. Those medical expenses were reasonable and necessary to treat claimant’s left arm injury. (Hearing Report) I find that the medical expenses included and summarized in Claimant’s Exhibit 6 are the result of claimant’s work-related fall and injury on September 14, 2017. At trial, defendant conceded that the medical expenses contained in Claimant’s Exhibit 6 are owed as part of this worker’s compensation claim, and Mr. Rodriguez testified that he intends to pay this medical bill when he is financially able to do so.          Mr. Guerrero also incurred mileage for his transportation to and from medical appointments following his work injury. Claimant introduced Claimant’s Exhibit 7, summarizing the medical mileage claim. Defendant acknowledged these are legitimate medical mileage requests. I find that the treatment received following the work injury was reasonable and necessary. Therefore, I find that claimant incurred the mileage he outlines in Claimant’s Exhibit 7 and that the mileage is directly related to the September 14, 2017 work injury. I find that claimant has proven he traveled 514.50 miles for medical treatment as a result of his work injury.          Following the work injury, claimant missed work from September 14, 2017 through December 18, 2017. (Hearing Report) Defendant acknowledged the lost time from work at the commencement of trial, but the issue is noted as disputed on the hearing report. Therefore, to clarify the issue, I find that the lost time from work is the direct result of claimant’s September 14, 2017 fall and fractured left arm. Claimant was under work restrictions between September 14, 2017 and December 18, 2017. Those medical restrictions prevented Mr. Guerrero from returning to work for this employer or performing substantially similar work elsewhere.          The principal dispute in this case is about the extent of the employer’s credit against any award of temporary total disability benefits. Claimant concedes that the employer paid him cash on one occasion after the date of injury. Claimant’s testimony on the amount of cash received has varied slightly. In his deposition, Mr. Guerrero acknowledged that he did not recall the specific amount of the payment made by defendant. However, he testified that the one-time payment was $520.00 or $540.00. (Claimant’s Exhibit, page 11) During his trial testimony, Mr. Guerrero testified it was either $450.00 or $540.00 paid to him on a one-time basis.          Claudia Mendoza testified on behalf of claimant. She testified that she recalls only one payment being made by defendant. She testified she was present for this cash exchange and that claimant never told her about another payment made by defendant.          Although Ms. Mendoza denied it is possible that defendant made a cash payment to claimant when she was not present, it is obvious that defendant could make a payment to claimant when Ms. Mendoza was not present. However, Ms. Mendoza testified that she had to work extra hours in her job and use credit cards for claimant’s family to survive while he was off work between September and December 2017. This is a reasonable consequence of a loss of wages.          The employer contends that...