HELEN WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. DES MOINES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT and EMC INSURA NCE COMPANIES, Respondents-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-1040 / 06-1008
Filed May 23, 2007
HELEN WOODS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
DES MOINES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
and EMC INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don Nickerson,
Judge.
Helen Woods appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming
the decision of the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner. AFFIRMED.
Gary G. Mattson of LaMarca & Landry, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Matthew A. Grotnes of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellees.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Baker, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Helen Woods appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming
the decision of the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner.
Because
substantial evidence supports the district court’s ruling, we affirm.
Woods was employed as a school bus driver with the Des Moines Public
School District when she suffered a work-related injury to her right shoulder on
August 18, 1999. The parties settled her workers’ compensation claim on July
17, 2001, agreeing the injury caused a 17.5% industrial disability.
Woods
received benefits in the amount of $24,409.62.
In September of 2004, a hearing was held before a deputy workers’
compensation commissioner to determine whether review-reopening of her 1999
claim was warranted due to a substantial change in her condition not
contemplated at the time of settlement. Woods also claimed she had sustained a
work-related injury to her left shoulder on May 22, 2000, and an additional injury
to her right shoulder on May 1, 2002, for each of which she sought temporary
and permanent disability benefits.
The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner declined reviewreopening of the 1999 claim and found no compensable injury was sustained on
May 1, 2002.
The deputy commissioner did find Woods suffered a twenty-
percent industrial injury to her left shoulder on May 22, 2000 and awarded her
$27,862 of permanent partial disability benefits.
The workers’ compensation
commissioner affirmed.
Woods filed a petition for judicial review. In its June 1, 2006 order, the
district court concluded:
3
The Court finds that all of the challenged findings of the
commissioner are supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner
has not established the criteria necessary to review or reopen the
proceedings involving her August 18, 1999 right shoulder injury.
The commissioner’s finding that Petitioner’s fibromyalgia and
chronic myofascial pain syndrome are not causally related to her
work-related shoulder injuries is supported by substantial evidence.
The commissioner’s finding that Petitioner’s depression is not
causally related to her workplace shoulder injuries is likewise
supported by substantial evidence. Finally the commissioner’s
finding that Petitioner suffered a 20% industrial disability as a result
of her May 22, 2000 left shoulder injury is supported by substantial
evidence.
Iowa Code chapter 17A governs judicial review of decisions made by the
workers’ compensation commissioner. Iowa Code § 86.26 (2003). When the
district court exercises its judicial review power it acts in an appellate capacity to
correct errors of law on the part of the agency. Grundmeyer v. Weyerhaeuser
Co., 649 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 2002). Our review of the district court's decision
requires application of the standards of Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) to
determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court.
P.D.S.I. v. Peterson, 685 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Iowa 2004). If they are the same, we
affirm; if not, we reverse. Id. A party challenging agency action bears the burden
of demonstrating the action’s invalidity and resulting prejudice. Iowa Code §
17A.19(8)(a). This can be shown in a number of ways, including proof the action
was ultra vires; legally erroneous; unsupported by substantial evidence in the
record, when that record is viewed as a whole; or otherwise unreasonable,
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See id. § 17A.19(10).
On judicial review, we are bound by the agency's findings of operative
facts, so long as those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the
record when the record is viewed as a whole. See id.; Excel Corp. v. Smithart,
4
654 N.W.2d 891, 896 (Iowa 2002). In contrast, for those issues involving the
agency’s interpretation of the law in cases in which the agency has not been
vested with the final authority to interpret the law, we determine whether the
agency’s interpretation was erroneous and we may substitute our interpretation
for the agency’s. See Clark v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 696 N.W.2d 596, 604 (Iowa
2005).
Turning to Woods’s contentions on appeal, we must dismiss outright her
claims that the district court erroneously applied the law to the facts in finding (1)
she failed to establish a substantial change in her condition warranting review
reopening of her 1999 claim, (2) her fibromyalgia and chronic myofascial pain
syndrome are not causally related to her shoulder injuries, and (3) that her
depression was not causally related to her shoulder injuries. The district court
did not address whether the commissioner erroneously applied the law to the
facts,
focusing
only
on
whether
substantial
evidence
supported
the
commissioner’s ruling. Accordingly, error was not preserved on these issues.
See Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Iowa 1998) (stating our error
preservation rule requires that issues must be presented to and passed upon by
the district court before they can be raised and decided on appeal). Although the
error preservation argument is not raised by the respondents, it may be raised by
the court on its own motion in the interest of preserving judicial resources. Top of
Iowa Co-op v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000). We are left
then with the issues of whether substantial evidence supports the district court’s
finding that Woods’s fibromyalgia and chronic pain are not causally related to her
shoulder injuries and whether substantial evidence supports the court’s finding
5
that Woods sustained a twenty-percent industrial disability as a result of the
injury to her left shoulder.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the finding that the
fibromyalgia and chronic pain are not causally related to Woods’s shoulder
injuries.
Expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish a causal
connection between the injury and the disability for which benefits are sought.
Grundmeyer v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 649 N.W.2d 744, 752 (Iowa 2002). No expert
attributed the fibromyalgia and chronic pain to the shoulder injuries. Woods had
the burden of proving causality by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. As the
commissioner noted, “Claimant’s subjective belief that her pain syndromes . . .
must have originated in her work is entitled to little weight.” Woods has failed to
carry the burden of proving a work-related injury.
We also conclude substantial evidence supports the assessment of a
twenty-percent industrial disability to Woods as a result of her left shoulder injury.
Industrial disability measures an injured worker’s lost earning capacity. Second
Injury Fund v. Shank, 516 N.W.2d 808, 813 (Iowa 1994). Factors that should be
considered include the employee’s functional impairment, age, intelligence,
education, qualifications, experience, and the ability of the employee to engage
in employment for which he is suited.
Id.
The finding of a twenty-percent
industrial disability is consistent with the impairment ratings assigned by Woods’s
own doctors, the physical limitations this injury has placed upon her, and her
ability to work. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
