Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-484 / 06-1377 Filed December 28, 2007

MIDWEST AMBULANCE SERVICE and COMBINED SPECIALTY INSURANCE, f/k/a VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., Respondents-Appellants, vs. JODI RUUD, Petitioner-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Leo Oxberger, Judge.

The respondents appeal from the ruling on judicial review from the claimant's workers' compensation action. AFFIRMED.

Steven Nadel of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants. Mindi Vervaecke of the Fitzsimmons & Vervaecke Law Firm, P.L.C., Mason City, for appellee.

Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Baker, JJ., but decided en banc.

2 BAKER, J. Midwest Ambulance Service appeals from the ruling on judicial review of Jodi Ruud's workers' compensation claim. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On May 12, 2000, Jodi Ruud was employed by Midwest Ambulance Service as a paramedic. As she was disinfecting an ambulance, her left shoulder dislocated. Before she was transported to Methodist Hospital, her shoulder

located itself back into place. She was then examined by Dr. Berg, who released Ruud to return to work with no restrictions, but warned her it would continue to dislocate. Later that week, pursuant to Dr. Berg's referral, Ruud saw a physical therapist who told her she would need surgery at some time in the future. Ruud did not miss any work at this time. From the time of the injury through approximately November 2000, Ruud's shoulder continued to dislocate on an average of once per month. Usually, she was able to put her shoulder back into place quickly, but she would still experience pain for up to two days following each dislocation. dislocations, she was pain-free. On June 16, 2002, Ruud dove into a swimming pool and once again dislocated her shoulder. As in the past, she was able to re-locate it by herself. She missed one day of work following this dislocation and reported the incident to Midwest. In a June 20, 2002 letter to Midwest, Ruud requested treatment for her shoulder and related everything back to her original May 12, 2000 dislocation. On July 11, 2002, while lifting a patient at work, Ruud incurred a shoulder strain and reported it to her supervisor. Six days later she saw Dr. Between

3 Virginia Geary, to whom she was sent by Midwest. Dr. Geary refused to provide medical treatment, stating Midwest was denying liability because the injury was incurred during a non-work diving incident. She suggested Ruud seek an

orthopedist using private medical insurance. Ruud testified that at that time she was prohibited from returning to work at Midwest until she was released by an orthopedic surgeon. Ruud has never returned to work at Midwest. Later, in August, Ruud saw an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Raymond Emerson, who recommended an MRI and discussed the possibility of surgery. A subsequent MRI revealed a probable superior labrum anterior posterior lesion. Ruud eventually underwent surgery on September 25, 2002, to repair the tear and reconstruct the anterior labrum and capsule. On August 27, 2003, Ruud filed a workers' compensation petition. In a November 2004 arbitration decision, a deputy commissioner found that Ruud's petition was barred by the statute of limitations found in Iowa Code section 85.26 (2003). On intra-agency appeal, the commissioner reversed and found that the petition was not time-barred. Midwest appeals. II. Scope and Standards of Review On judicial review, the district court affirmed.

Our review of an industrial commissioner's decision is for correction of errors at law. Simonson v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 588 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1999). When we review the district court's decision, "we apply the standards of chapter 17A to determine whether the conclusions we reach are the same as those of the district court. If they are the same, we affirm; otherwise we reverse." Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Iowa 2004).

4 Under chapter 17A of the Iowa Code, the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, the district court is authorized to review decisions rendered by the industrial commissioner. Bearce v. FMC Corp., 465 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991). The district court may reverse or modify an agency's decision if the decision is erroneous under a ground specified in the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, and a party's substantial rights have been prejudiced. Iowa Code

Download MIDWEST AMBULANCE SERVICE and COMBINED SPEC IALTY INSURANCE, f/k/a VIRGINIA SURE

Iowa Law