This appeal involves a routine workers’ compensation case made unnecessarily complex by the district court’s refusal to adjudicate the controversy on its merits. We reverse and remand to the district court for the judicial review contemplated by Iowa Code section 17A.19 (1995).
The salient facts are not disputed. Cathy Aceordino worked for Bridgestone/Firestone as a tire trimmer. She claimed benefits for cumulative work injury resulting in surgery for bilateral carpal tunnel decompression and disability from bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome. At an arbitration hearing held before a deputy industrial commissioner, the parties contested whether Accordino’s injuries were work-related; whether the injuries caused permanent disability; the nature, extent, and commencement date of permanent disability, if any; and the correct rate of weekly compensation.
The deputy detailed his findings of fact and conclusions of law in a single-spaced, seven-page opimon. Concluding that Aceor-dino’s injuries were causally related to her work, the deputy then determined the extent of her disability and calculated her rate of compensation. Bridgestone/Firestone appealed to the industrial commissioner; Ac-cordino cross-appealed.
The industrial commissioner’s decision on appeal read as follows:
The record, including the transcript of the hearing before the deputy and all exhibits admitted into the record, has been reviewed de novo on appeal. The decision of the deputy filed August 11, 1994, is affirmed and is adopted as the final agency action in this case.
Claimant and defendants shall share equally the costs of the appeal including transcription of the hearing.
Upon receiving this decision, Bridge-stone/Firestone petitioned for judicial review.
Bridgestone/Firestone raised two issues on judicial review. First it claimed the industrial commissioner’s calculation of Aceordino’s weekly earmngs erroneously overstated her actual income. Second, it claimed the commissioner erred in its analysis of the permanent impairment rating by relying on a more recent physician’s evaluation rather than a contrary evaluation submitted by Accordino’s longtime treating physician.
Although these issues had been addressed in the deputy’s ruling — and their resolution affirmed in whole by the industrial commissioner — the district court flatly refused to consider the challenge to them on judicial review. The court sua sponte questioned whether the commissioner’s abbreviated af-firmance “is fair to the litigants and whether it meets the statutory framework and spirit of Iowa’s Administrative Act.” The court remanded the case to the industrial commissioner for “an express agency determination of these issues.”
Aceordino, joined by Bridgestone/Fire-stone, sought a reconsideration of the court’s ruling under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b). The parties shared the view that the industrial commissioner’s adoption of the deputy’s decision complied with Iowa Code chapter 17A and constituted final agency ac *62 tion preserving the merits for judicial review by the district court. Their motions were denied. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.
I. The rules governing our review on appeal from judicial review of agency action are well settled. We, like the district court, are obliged to broadly and liberally construe an agency’s factual findings so as to uphold, rather than defeat, the agency’s decision.
Norland v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Servs.,
The parties urge us, on grounds of judicial economy, to proceed in accordance with these standards despite the district court’s refusal to rule in the first instance. We are without jurisdiction to do so.
See Western Int’l v. Kirkpatrick,
II. The district court believed the industrial commissioner’s “short form” appellate decision failed to comport with Iowa Code section 17A.16(1). That section pro.vides, in pertinent part:
A proposed or final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of underlying facts supporting the findings- Each conclusion of law shall be supported by cited authority or by a reasoned opinion. Iowa Code § 17A.16(1). On appeal the parties contend that the deputy’s fidelity to this standard, expressly affirmed by the commissioner, satisfies the statutory mandate. We agree.
This court has long held that the commissioner must “state the evidence relied upon and [] detail reasons for his conclusions.”
Catalfo v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
We believe the standards have been easily met by the agency here. No purpose would be served by requiring the commissioner to duplicate the deputy’s effort. We do not read the statute to require it. When the commissioner’s affirmance rests on review yielding identical factual findings, and the commissioner’s legal analysis mirrors that described by the deputy, no further recitals are necessary to satisfy section 17A.16(1) for purpose of judicial review. To read into the statute the necessity of a full opinion, as required by the district court here, exalts form over substance.
We reverse and remand this case for decision by the district court as swiftly as the court’s calendar will permit it. Costs on appeal shall be shared equally by the parties.
*63 REVERSED AND REMANDED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL WITH INSTRUCTIONS.