Broadlawns Medical Center Vs. Rose Marie Sanders
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 143
Iowa2010Background
- Sanders, a certified nursing assistant for Broadlawns, developed PTSD after witnessing a client suicide at Arlington House in 2003.
- February 2004, Dr. Gallagher permanently restricted Sanders from Arlington House and Broadlawns reassigned her to Oakland House.
- Dr. Gallagher and others noted Sanders’ symptoms over time, with opinions ranging from maximum medical improvement (MMI) and mild impairment to potential future improvement if not returned to Arlington.
- In 2005–2006, Sanders’ doctors varied on permanency; Gallagher indicated Sanders could not be returned to full Arlington work but could work elsewhere, while Mills suggested ongoing improvement might occur.
- Broadlawns terminated risks based on restrictions, and Sanders sought permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits; the deputy commissioner awarded PPD, the district court affirmed, but the court of appeals reversed on lack of corroborating expert permanency testimony.
- This court grants review to determine if substantial evidence supports permanency and the PPD award, ultimately affirming the district court and reinstating the PPD award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports permanency and PPD | Sanders argues permanency supported by MMI evidence and doctors' opinions. | Broadlawns contends no expert testified permanency; some opinions suggested improvement. | Yes; substantial evidence supports permanency and PPD. |
| Whether Sanders is entitled to PPD under Iowa Code § 85.34 | Permanent disability based on reduced earning capacity after stabilization. | Dispute over whether stabilization and permanency occurred; some testimony suggested not permanent. | Yes; PPD awarded upon stabilization and permanency findings. |
| Whether Dr. Gallagher's April 2006 statement undermines permanency | April 2006 statement could be interpreted as non-permanence. | Statement reflects hopeful outlook but does not negate prior MMI determinations. | No; the record supports permanency notwithstanding that statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Bros. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Gwinn, 779 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2010) (stabilization critical to permanency determination)
- Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009) (commissioner weighs conflicting medical evidence)
- Pitzer v. Rowley Interstate, 507 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 1993) (significant improvement not anticipated relates to stability analysis)
- Craddock v. Keystone Nursing Care Ctr., 705 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 2005) (deference to agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213 (Iowa 2006) (focus on whether findings are supported by the record)
- Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360 (Iowa 2005) (scope of review on appeal in administrative decisions)
- Everly v. Knoxville Cmty. Sch. Dist., 774 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2009) (review scope and finality of issues on appeal)