CLETUS HEIM, Claimant
v.
A.Y. McDonald MFG., CO., Employer, Self-Insured, Defendant.
No. 5052066
Iowa Workers Compensation
Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner
February 11, 2020
Head
Note No. 3303.20
APPEAL DECISION
JOSEPH
S. CORTESE II WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER
Defendant
A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Company, self-insured employer,
appeals from a partial commutation decision filed on October
5, 2018. Claimant Cletus Heim responds to the appeal. The
case was heard before the deputy commissioner on April 19,
2018. The parties were not able to complete oral testimony in
the allotted timeframe for hearing. As such, the hearing was
completed on April 27, 2018. The matter was considered fully
submitted on July 2, 2018.
In the
partial commutation decision, the deputy commissioner
determined claimant's request for partial commutation of
all but the final week of the previous award of permanent
total disability benefits is reasonable, is in the best
interest of claimant, and should be granted.
On
appeal, defendant argues claimant failed to establish a
specific need for, and projected use of, the partial
commutation funds. Defendant additionally asserts
claimant's primary motivation and purpose in seeking a
partial commutation is to create an estate for his heirs,
which is inconsistent with the purpose for which permanent
total disability benefits are awarded under Iowa law, and
reflects an intended use of the funds in the best interest of
persons other than the claimant. Lastly, defendant contends
the hearing deputy erred in excluding certain medical records
from evidence.
Claimant
asserts on appeal that the partial commutation decision
should be affirmed in its entirety.
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
partial commutation decision filed on October 5, 2018, which
relate to the issues properly raised on intra-agency appeal,
are affirmed with the following additional findings and
analysis:
With
respect to defendant's argument that claimant failed to
establish a specific need for, and projected use of, the
partial commutation funds, the deputy commissioner correctly
noted that the only relevant inquiry in this matter is
whether the proposed commutation is in claimant's best
interest. (See Partial Commutation Decision, p. 10) The
deputy commissioner noted defendant's argument that
claimant "lacks a specific plan for investment of the
proceeds of the commutation," and as such, his request
"cannot be found reasonable or in claimant's best
interest." Id. However, as the deputy
commissioner correctly determined, investment is not the sole
basis for granting a commutation. Id.
Ultimately,
the determination of whether the commutation is in
claimant's best interest is a factual determination based
upon the factors being balanced in each case. Dameron v.
Neumann Bros.. Inc.. 339 N.W.2d 160, 163 (Iowa 1983)
("Where, as here, the industrial commissioner in a
contested case proceeding has determined that commutation was
in the best interests of the claimant, the trial...
