GENERAL MILLS and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. , P etitioners - Appell ees/Cross - Appellant s , vs. CYNTHIA MARTIN , Respondent - Appell ant /Cross - Appellee .
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-669 / 07-1982
Filed November 13, 2008
GENERAL MILLS and LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
vs.
CYNTHIA MARTIN,
Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble,
Judge.
Former employee appeals and employer cross-appeals from the ruling on
judicial review from employee’s workers’ compensation action. AFFIRMED.
Thomas M. Wertz and Matthew D. Dake of Wertz Law Firm, P.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant.
Peter L. Thill and Edward R. Rose of Betty, Neuman & McMahon, P.L.C.,
Davenport, for appellees.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Cynthia Martin was injured while employed by General Mills in July of
2000 and she later filed a workers’ compensation petition.
The workers’
compensation commissioner found Martin was permanently and totally disabled
and ordered General Mills to pay a $50,000 penalty for its failure to pay benefits
on Martin’s depression claim. On judicial review, the district court affirmed the
award of permanent total disability, but reversed the penalty benefits award.
Martin appeals, claiming the district court erred in reversing the
commissioner’s award of penalty benefits.
General Mills cross-appeals,
maintaining the commissioner’s finding of permanent total disability is not
supported by substantial evidence. Upon our review pursuant to Iowa Code
chapter 17A (2005), we affirm.
As the district court properly found, the
permanent disability finding is supported by substantial evidence, see Iowa Code
§ 17A.19(10)(f), and the commissioner’s award of penalty benefits was based on
an erroneous interpretation of law, the product of an irrational and wholly
unjustifiable application of the law to the facts, and lacking in consideration of
relevant facts. See id. at §§ 17A.19(10)(c), (j), (l), (m), and (n). Because we
agree with the district court’s careful recitation of the facts, reasoning, and
application of the law, we affirm. See Iowa R. App. P. 21.29(1)(b), (d), and (e).
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.
