*1 Rеgularly enacted laws are tutional sense. constitutional, pre- and this to be presumed DeSHAW, Appellant, Howard by one attack- be overcome sumption must invalidity by proving its ing statute ENERGY MANUFACTURING COMPANY any reason- beyond doubt. reasonable and Federated Mutual Insur- facts can be conceived which able state ance, Appellees. it the law was validity support
will No. 54118. it, ours, to sustain duty, as it is trial court’s negative obligation plaintiffs’ and it was Supreme Iowa. Court of upholding it. basis for every conceivable Dec. 1971. Sales, Erbе, supra. Inc. v. Diamond Auto Denied Jan. 1972. Review plaintiffs failed to do so. In our judgment, sympathize can of course with We connection, plaintiffs
position in this the wisdom or
but not able to legislature enacting its policy Lansing (Iowa Strong v.
laws. Town 367;
1970), Iowa Natural Zee, 261 Iowa Council v. Van
Resources a statute
Nor can we conclude basis is
reasonable unconstitutional because Sales, Auto its harshness. Diamond 1335-1336, Erbe, at supra,
Inc. v.
652;
Steinberg-Baum
N.W.2d at
& Co.
Countryman, supra,
N.W.2d at hardship legislature constitutes industry,
mobile home it look
legislature for Snook Herrmann relief.
(Iowa 1968), 161 N.W.2d 322.3(9),
II. We conclude section up arbitrary
Code 1966 does not set
classification, upon that it rests reasonable
grounds policy, and sound public
reasonably goals related to the Irrespective
seeks to achieve. of the fact may a hardship
that it work dealers by prohibiting
mobile homes sales on Sun-
days, appears the statute to us to be con- judgment
stitutional. The and decree of the court, therefore,
trial is reversed.
Reversed.
All concur. Justices
UHLENHOPP, Justice. must decide here whether the Iowa
We Deputy properly Industrial Commissioner denied a claimant additional workman’s compensation pro- review-reopening a ceeding. DeShaw,
Claimant Howard now farmer old, years a congenital has deform- back ity spondylolisthesis. posterior called his arch of fifth lumbar not vertebra solidly body attached to the the vertebra. years ago por- A number the anterior tion forward slipped on the below. vertebra consequence, In had thereafter pain to from time time. periods Those back de- trouble were lay spasms scribed witnesses as strains or “throwing a disc.” Claimant called them “periodic spasms.” back saw medical, osteopathic, various and chiro- practic physicians. physi- In 1940 he saw City, ciаn in having been referred years, Dr. Through Steindler. how- ever, carry was able to at least some employment farm, farm work off subject periods difficulty. to his of back In working Energy for Manufacturing Company (“Energy”). His required work him drill holes rather heavy pipe, which he had to move about. year, 20 of moving On while pipe, experienced his back trouble. He left pain work because of the in his back. weeks, He off work for during which he took treatments from an osteo- path. Thereafter he was able to return to job, his and workеd for a week. He then took a pay, being week’s vacation on en- titled thereto. After that he returned to job performed his normal work month, for a little over a until He testified thought that he if nothing happened, else had “I would have Nazette, Hendrickson, okay.” well, Marn- been Brom Humphreys, Rapids, er and E. Cedar & something Sep- But else happen. did On Manchester, Carr, appellant. Michael for endeavoring tember 22 claimant was spring-loaded Ingersoll, Rapids, change polishing Shuttleworth & Cedar belt on a appellees. pull machine. task him other stated that he sustained an push with one hand 20, 1966, compensation of taut belt get spring-load against paid, and that matter should be episode his back been He had another off. reopened. allege trouble, He He described this time severe. nor “independent” apply one. He episode as
this compensation on felt testified, strain another “I felt *3 I account of it. struck me the back. something like with I doctored again .... left work Deputy Industrial Commission- after sec- osteopath] Dr. Gearhart [the (“the hearing on commissioner”) er held a my hands and was on episode. I ond February application on claimant’s 1969. ” . . . . knees lay testified, including claim- Six witnesses incident, Energy’s general ant. them claim- One of was September After manager, who testified that when he would straight did not stand improved, but he ant street, meet claimant on the claimant would over. somewhat hunched and walked physical gait change pos- his not seem slow his perform did to Thenceforth he lay ture. The other fivе witnesses were His took of the farm. son care work. testified, They offered claimant. with treatments for time time he took From to observation, varying that claim- back, expense degrees incurring therefor. his perform ant was to his work before able request Energy’s at the Subsequently, Energy, left he left he no but that after carrier, an ortho- claimant saw posture. longer and had a hunched worked surgeon. pedic They distinguish in- not between the did juries July September on 20 and 22 or be- 3, 1967, a January On memorandum of disability from tween amount each Energy between claimant and they attempt those Nor did occurrences. was filed with the Iowa Commis- Industrial say episode July that the bore a rela- sioner. The memorandum recited that episode on tion a back injury claimant sustained while lift- 20, 1966, ing pipes that on testified, orthopedic surgeons Two disability probable was duration of un- Energy. for for claimant the other paid Energy’s known. insurance carrier They gave testimony. remarkably similar weeks, plus per week for 11 congenital Both told about claimant’s back expense medical At the end of that $126. thought condition both he had some dis- period payments terminated. No memo- prior that condition respect Sep- randum was filed with to the plant. They at Energy’s two occurrences tember 22 (cid:127)incident. Nor that was occur- believed that those occurrences increased rence mentioned in the memorandum permanent disability. claimant’s Claim- was which in fact filed. say ant’s not doctor did how much those oc- later, claimant slipped Still twice and had disability; currences increased such En- his again. back trouble of those One oc- ergy’s opined medical witness that the oc- sufficiently casions was serious that he permanent increased the disabil- currences “had adjustments to have for it.” Neither ity sepa- Neither estimated witness 10%. employment. occasion was connected rately disability flowing from They opin- occurrences. not venture Thereafter, claimant obtained and lived that a ion re- causal security payments on social permanent lаtionship opin- to the Their second one. disability, together awith little income from congenital ion was that claimant con- has selling insurance and his small farm. dition him in his back which causes trouble On claimant filed an They spoke aroused. when application for review-reopening potato” under in his spondylolisthesis as “hot § 86.34, Code, In application “sleeping They thought dog.” back or a work, could still do but such somewhat proceeding is circum- heavy
not
An
authority
labor.
this field of
scribed.
law
states, “In a reopening proceeding, the issue
hearing,
After a
the commissioner denied
sharply
before the board is
restricted
reopen.
claimant’s
He held
improvement
of extent
or wors-
temporary
sustained
.claimant
ening
original
which
from the incident of
Larson,
was
award
based.” 3
made,
perma-
payment
but
Compensation Law,
(1970).
81.32 at 341
§
nent disability.
reopening
A
issue in
fundamental
appealed
case
district
proceedings
proximate
cause. As stated
court,
where
decision
commissioner’s
Welch,
Oldham Scofield &
appeal
Hence
present
affirmed.
764, 768-769,
N.W.
rehear
*4
by
this
claimant to
court.
269
ing,
N.W. 925:
problems
presented by
Two
ap-
words,
In other
an
where
accident occurs
peal. First, since two incidents are in-
an employee
to
in the usual course of his
volved,
prove
what must
in
order
employment,
is liable for
to obtain
compensation
additional
based on
consequences
prox-
all
naturally
that
and
July 20,
Second,
the incident of
1966?
imately
(Italics
accident.
flow
supported by
from
commissioner’s decision
added.)
competent
sufficient
evidence?
presents
present
The
case
the com
I.
What
Must Establish.
of
plication
injuries,
July
two
one on
20 and
already
a
disability,
workman
has some
September
the other on
22. When a work
such as
spondylolisthesis,
his
and
dis
man sustains
injury,
an
later sustains anoth
by
compensable
increased
a
in
injury,
subsequently
er
reopen
seeks to
jury,
compensation
he
entitled
to
predicated
an award
on the first
injury,
extent of the increased
disability,
ap
an
prove
things:
must
one of
(a)
that the
propriate proceeding. Yount v. United
disability for
seeks additional
Co.,
813,
Fire & Cas.
256 Iowa
129 N.W.2d
compensation
by
proximately
was
caused
75;
Goodyear
Stores,
Olson v.
Service
255
injury,
the first
(b)
or
that
1112,
251;
Iowa
Yeager
125 N.W.2d
v.
injury (and
proxi
ensuing disability) was
Co.,
369,
Firestone
Rubber
Tire &
253
mately
injury.
caused
Cases
299;
112
Ziegler
States
v. United
of the former kind are Oldham v. Scofield
Gypsum Co.,
613,
252 Iowa
106 N.W.2d
Welch,
764,
480,
&
222 Iowa
266
on
N.W.
591;
Compensation
99
C.J.S.
rehearing,
(sufficient
781 After that that date. by the incident on ensuing disabil- ed subsequent incidents and did a hunch Department incident he walked ; McDougle v. ity) again. Industries, 393 not work Wash.2d Labor & proxi- to bе injury shown (original P.2d 631 ensuing injury and findings of the commis The fact
mate cause sioner, a trial court disability). findings like have the force of ordinary proceedings, July injured on here was Since Ed Henderson v. jury verdict. Jennie 22, in order again 20 and (Iowa); Hosp., mundson 178 N.W.2d to re- on his prevail him to Procedure. Rules of Civil Rule injury, he had open July based on find commissioner’s has said that the court proximately that the show broadly liberally construed ings “will be seeks disability for which he caused the defeat, decision,” rather than uphold, or, failing in that there question “is nоt whether and that the injury proximately that the proof, de is sufficient evidence warrant caused make, but did not cision commissioner evidence there is sufficient rather whether Sufficiency Evidence. II. Mus the decision he did make.” to warrant difficulty is that the evidence Claimant’s Co., Tel. selman Central proof to substantiate either devoid *5 testimony and lay The the alternatives. both testimony court, compelled show that after expert the we are Like the trial had September 22 incidents July the 20 and decision that the commissioner’s conclude occurred, disability than reopen predicat- claimant had more denying the purports to supported by But no witness the July before 20. July ed on the 20 disability resulted say that such increased and must stand. evidence or to estimate July 20 incident from the Affirmed. injury. resulted portion what from
Moreover, introduced that was no evidence Sep injury brought about July 20 BECKER, except All concur Justices contrary, a fair injury. 22 On tember REYNOLDSON, RAWLINGS, JJ., and incident, September is that the inference REES, dissent, no J., who takes who “sleep up July, in woke likе part. back, pre-existing ing dog” in claimant’s
spondylolisthesis. BECKER, (dissenting). Justice 20, July disability antedating Claimant’s respectfully I dissent. spondylolisthesis, from treatment time to time. The commissioner could Compensation Law I. “Our Workmen’s July find that one those times was the man, and working the benefit incident, claimant 20 incident. After liberally to that end.” should be construed again, to work took treatments was able Mill, McCreary N.W.2d Irish v. Saw 175 past. in the No evidence was introduced as 364, principle of stat- 1970). No (Iowa 368 July that after 20 incident he walked utory firmly imbedded construсtion is more with a hunch. The commissioner could foregoing. in our law than the When find, did, that failed to as he ignores this deputy industrial commissioner prove July 20 incident itself caused subject principle, his action should permanent disability. But when any as it is on review on this rule of law incident, July after returned to work 20 other rule law. spondylolisthesis he still had the condition course, host of we in his had trouble from that Of have back effect, 22, design, oper- if not in precipitat- again September rules which condition denigrate principle ings ate to cardinal and evidence. He had work-connected injuries liberal construction: incidents or on two occasions. The 20, first 1966 and the occurred on consistently have construed these “We 22, 1966. Claimant provisions making as the commissioner’s but tried not file on the second incident findings of fact conclusive where the evi- during trial amend his claim before dispute minds dence is or reasonable deputy The commissioner commissioner. fairly differ on the drawn inferences opin- to allow and in his refused amendment findings from the facts. Such have entirely sequelae ion confined himself same standing jury as a verdict. Uhe growing out of the 20 incident. I be- Corp., Central States Theatre 258 Iowa prejudicially lieve he erred on both counts. 580, 581, 538; Usgaard N.W.2d Club, Silver Clearly employer’s Crest 256 Iowa representatives Golf 636, 637; Benedict injury. N.W.2d Sister M. knew of the DeShaw Mary’s Corp., quit injury. St. 255 Iowa 124 testified he because of the On 548, 549, employer’s manager citations. November told employer’s claimant had back “In Telephone Musselman v. Central requested insurance carrier an examination Co., 352, 355, 356, Huey shortly Dr. of claimant some time rule, after stating the above we before December after cases, however, say: ‘In where the facts and before the dispute are not in and different infer- filed the outdated Form No. reasonably ences could not be drawn Agreement Compensa- Memorandum of therefrom, it becomes a of law tion. and the court is not bound the com- findings temporary missioner’s total conclusions. ceased long September 22, before There was commissionеr, court, ‘It is the not the no except need for medical examination weighs who findings evidence and his *6 connection with a new When the broadly will be liberally and construed to doctor, employer, on behalf the of the took uphold, defeat, rather than his decision. medical history he was told of the second “ course, or incident and included it in his ‘Of a claimant has the burden evaluation. of showing by preponderance of the evi- dence, commissioner, before the the form, (1) Form No. 4 was on an old arosе out of and the employ- course of long entirely lacking and in the outdated ment. proper essential of a memorandum elements (see required form as No- ‘Our is not whether there is Rules, Departmental vember Iowa sufficient evidence to warrant a decision 1971, page required 406), (2) to be filed the make, commissioner did not but rather thirty days payment weekly within after whether there is sufficient evidence to compensation begun is was thus (it ” warrant the decision he did make.’ (loc. late). months Nevertheless the com- 4½ cit. Henderson v. Edmundson Hos Jennie approved missioner January pital, 431). No Form No. 5 was filed. The commis- All of these rules are necessary prop- and sioner’s own rules state: er in their place. However, when their re- report “This signed by is to be the em- strictive operates use to defeat the cardinal ployee compensation when is terminated principle of liberal they construction or interrupted, and is to be filed the take place. by employer industrial the commissioner II. Claimant is pilloried carrier, closing supple- following as strict interpretation restrictive plead- ment to Form No. 4.” receipt, employer’s form requires report prescribed of this Form No. 5 (or ad- disability 1.1(1). claimed Commissioner’s rule it shows when it is claimed begun, when to have mitted) « n n n ceased, and whether to have (or admitted) employer “The was aware of the claim- disability permanent partial any there paid ant’s and medi- claimed. compensation. cal weekly bills and How- any settle- final Thus there never ever, represеntative employer’s failed Commis- approved the Industrial ment Agreement to file a Memorandum of Form No. record. The sioner under this Receipt Form 5 many at all and waited only go to admission of approval could filing Report. months before a First It paid. to be It weekly amount assumption reasonable that such failure long the information as to how contains no employer is willful and pay must or as was to continue payment continued or penalty of for each of the three re- temporary total dis- to the duration of ports timely it failed to file. Because amount, any, perma- of the if or the employer failed file a Memorandum of partial disability. subject to be- (All nent Agreement, required employee never ing Form No. 5 which was shown on have an hearing Arbitration before a filed.) Deputy under Section and a 86.14 Review hearing in Des Moines before the Com- duty mandatory employer It is the missioner under 86.24. duty supply such information. It is the the Industrial Commissioner to see delay “This has meant a of over three 86.11, Code, this is done. Iowa §§ months- and has the Industrial 86.12, Departmental 86.8. Cf. many Commissioner to devote hours Rules, page seq. et lawyers this decision and the of both the employer and the rulings by to travel Prior the Industrial Commis- City by his Sioux Des The em- sioner should have been Moines. considered ployer’s deputy. Packing obey failure to the workmen’s In Hines v. Raskin Com- al, pany, Twenty-Ninth statute and Industrial et found in Biennial Commissioner, Report, mockery Commissioner’s rules makes a Industrial Supreme p. opinion charge proce- Court’s dated October dures under say: spеedy. Commissioner had this to this law should be voluntarily does not remit to “There another matter in this case the Industrial Commissioner on behalf of grave which is of concern to the Commis- *7 Iowa, pre- State of the matter will be injury sioner. The claimant’s occurred sented on complaint Woodbury on February dis- suffered County Attorney.” days paid within a few and was weekly compensation by employer’s delay Yet in this case the months’ in 4½ However, carrier. First filing report ignored; failure Report Injury was not filed with the to file a proper ignоred Form 4No. was Industrial Commissioner until November any and failure to file Form 5 also No. was 4, 1968and a Agreement Memorandum of ignored. Receipt Form No. 5 been have never filed. Section 86.11 of requires the Code foregoing fine in the is but case employer an to file Report a First importance one form of Of more sanction. Injury with the case, Industrial Commissioner in this the claimant should not be held within 48 knowledge hours after notice actually happened unable to show what temporarily which disables employer’s when thе in dereliction resulted an employee days for more than re- 7 Commissioner’s failure to review sults in permanent disability place. or death. in matter
784 Works, 164 N.W.2d Quinn Iron v. Wire & have been allowed 850, pertinent: 1969), 848, in- seems (Iowa 852 for the second claim
amend to Any statute jury as for first. as well is arbitration not application ‘An been should have limitations involved judged not to be pleading and is formal part deemed tolled for failure pleading. Nor technical rules of employer duty its under the statute. to do proof to al conformity of is the same ordinary necessary actions. legation as firmly position been has hereto Yeager Tire & (Citations).’ Firestone postured the Industrial Commissioner 373-374, Co., Rubber Pittsburgh-Des himself in Skinner 301-302; Morris Alm v. N.W.2d Company, filed December Moines Steel Co., 1174, 1177,38 Barick 240 Iowa Cattle proceeding review-reopening is true of an 163. The same brought under 86.34 and 86.35 of the §§ * * * application review-reopening. Compensation per- Act for 16,1961. “In an action of this kind injuries sonal January sustained on pleadings not formal Commissioner said: goal ‘rough justice— which has as a summary, untechni- speedy, informal and “Although paid the claimant had been Bros., cal’ Cross Hermanson weekly compensation in Iowa for 618, proof at of a causal 16 N.W.2d at per on the basis of 20 loss of cent connection a known condition between body, use of his there had been a never and an industrial discovered after accident disability. formal determination of his run, the statute of limitations have would Agreement The Memorandum of did not but while an for review-re- permanent disability refer to and statеs opening pending, properly admissible weekly compensation only rate for tem- application.” under such porary disability and healing period and permanent not disability. The Form No. surprise If were claimed a continuance Receipt showing weekly compensa- could granted. have been Of course sur- paid tion signed by not prise negated in this case because both so as acquiescence to indicate his doctors, evidence, constituting all medical per that he had pеr- cent had made the examinations on behalf of and partial manent disability. Under at request employer. They of the knew circumstances, to conclude either as a of the strange It would be fact, matter of law or that the claimant if indeed know what agreed permanent estimate of the doctors it had retained were about to disability resulting from injury, his 1961 say. would wrong. In view lack any support in the record for the carrier’s Thus the issue core is the Commissioner’s payments based per permanent on 20 cent failure to consider all of the prop- evidence disability, we feel proceed free to to make erly presented to him. our finding based upon the evidence of considered, or incident the evidence is record.” overwhelming permanent that there awas *8 partial disability growing of out work-con- purpose The of the Act is to see that the nected incidents extent. is There injured compensated is swiftly, no evidence to contrary. pointed As fairly and possible the least tape”. “red out bоth doctors company were hired ex- Cross Bros., v. Hermanson 16 perts that Further, claimant elected to use. N.W.2d 616. On the narrow issue of the treatments, medical bills for all includ- deputy commissioner’s failure consider ing by those related the doctors to have the second injury what we said in Coghlan emanated from incident were adopted funds theory injury of second whole only real The employer. by the assumed many by so states. disability. the extent here was to all surprising quite have been must It problems in alloca- legitimate are There entirely denied recovery was parties when by are law parties who various tion between heard who deputy commissioner by the disability. But part of the responsible for case. injuries for both is responsibility where the doctrine of party (employer here) ma- another facet There is III. percentage or difficulty of allocation The discussed. must be opinion that jority is to the total result amount of causation majority holds: completely misplaced. * * * an a workman sustains When subject this should not аbandon with- One injury, another injury, later sustains comparing adopted in this out the rule here reopen an award subsequently seeks to Compensation our case with must Workmen’s injury, first predicated on the rule tort In Treanor v. B. P. E. cases. that things: (a) prove one of two Inc., Leasing, (Iowa 1968), for which seeks we said: caused proximately injury, (b) or “ * * * that, The better rule is where prox- ensuing (and disability) was persons acting independently or more two * first imately by the caused guilty negli- are of consecutive acts of situation, totally ignored gеnce, causing damage There is a third to another under injuries are work majority. If both in- damage circumstances where the divisible, they connected are concurrent industrial negligent jointly actors are compensable. severally causes course, and the total those liable. Of principle crystal prob- clear when acts that are remote or have no reasonable apportionment injuries lem of from two damages connection with the arises. there are two industrial acci- сlaimed must In case excluded. separate doubt, involving again dents either em- (1) here the finder of fact must ployers, (2) opportunity the same but two be afforded an to decide carriers, separate problem whether negligence the consecutive acts of reasonably not whether damage claimant can recover for related to al- ** provable disability leged. full assumed), {this ap- but rather whether be an there should recognize We doctrine indivisible portionment II and for how much. Cf. insepаrable multiple injuries results of Compensation, Larson’s Workmen’s 59.- §§ recognize tort cases but refuse to 10, 59.20. Compensation Workmen’s cases. Even general rule is at I found Larson’s injuries where the were received while Compensation, Workmen’s 13.00: § working employer! for the same Even though theory the whole legislation primary injury “When the is shown is to compensation; assure the worker some to have arisen out of and in the course albeit, a smaller amount. employment, every consequence natural flows from the likewise arises I urge do not severability that the doc- out employment, unless it is the trine for tort cases wholly adopted should be independent intervening result cause Compensation cases. attributable to claimant’s own intentional would be inappropriate separate where the conduct.” injuries grow out of non-work-connected The same assumption that injuries. But injuries where the are all *9 fully must be compensated underlies the work especially connected and where the same, the doctrine of in- is the
separability surely apply.
I would reverse remand the In- proceed-
dustrial Commissioner further
ings.
RAWLINGS, REYNOLDSON, JJ.,
join in this dissent. al., Appellants,
Chris et DRAGSTRA
NORTHWESTERN STATE BANK OF CITY, Appellee. ORANGE
No. 54685.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Dec.