Gits Manufacturing Company and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company v. Deborah Frank, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 93

Deborah Frank, age 54, stopped working for Gits Manufacturing on Feb. 1, 2006 after being diagnosed with chronic constrictive bronchiolitis; she alleges total and permanent work disability.
Medical opinion (Dr. Joel Kline) found severe, permanent pulmonary impairment and limitations avoiding smoke/dust/fumes; maximum medical improvement reached in 2009.
Frank testified she has good and bad days, needs daily inhaler use, has not sought work since 2006, and could maybe do sedentary clerical work on good days but would need accommodations and training.
The Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission found Frank totally and permanently disabled under the odd‑lot doctrine, denied employer Gits a credit for social security and long‑term disability (LTD) benefits, and awarded penalties against Gits.
District court affirmed the commission on odd‑lot disability and penalties but reversed on credits; the court of appeals reversed the odd‑lot finding (and affirmed the commission on credits and preservation issues). The Supreme Court granted further review limited to the substantial‑evidence (odd‑lot) issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports commission’s finding Frank is totally and permanently disabled under the odd‑lot doctrine	Frank relied on Dr. Kline’s medical opinions plus lay testimony about functional variability and inability to work reliably	Gits argued vocational evidence showed suitable sedentary clerical jobs and retraining could make Frank employable	Court: Substantial evidence supports the commission’s credibility determinations and odd‑lot finding; affirmed.
Whether Gits is entitled to a credit for Social Security and LTD benefits paid to Frank	Frank argued credits were not properly allowed by employer and commission denied them	Gits argued it was entitled to credits and challenged commission’s denial; raised preservation issues about proof of repayment amounts	Court: On further review the Supreme Court left the court of appeals’ decision on credit issues as final (i.e., did not disturb the court of appeals ruling which affirmed the commission on credits).
Preservation of error as to proof of amounts repaid to LTD carrier and credit calculation	Frank: employer failed to preserve error so commission’s findings stand	Gits: contested preservation and sufficiency of proof regarding repaid amounts and credit	Court of Appeals held Gits did not preserve objection; Supreme Court declined to review those issues further, letting court of appeals’ rulings stand.

State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (standard for scope of review on further review)
IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410 (Iowa 2001) (administrative‑agency review framework)
City of Des Moines v. Emp’t Appeal Bd., 722 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2006) (appellate court’s task in reviewing district court agency review)
Arndt v. City of Le Claire, 728 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 2007) (credibility and substantial‑evidence review of agency factual findings)
Guyton v. Irving Jensen Co., 373 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1985) (odd‑lot doctrine explained)
Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Shank, 516 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1994) (whether employee can realistically compete for work)
Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa 2012) (odd‑lot burden shifting and scope of job search)
Miller v. Lauridsen Foods, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1994) (role of lay testimony in disability determinations)