Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-727 / 09-0343 Filed January 20, 2011

NANCY LEE HENNIGAR, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Stephen P. Carroll, Judge.

Nancy Hennigar appeals the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the decision of the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner denying her claim for benefits from the Second Injury Fund of Iowa. AFFIRMED.

Mark S. Soldat of Soldat & Parrish-Sams, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Joanne Moeller, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Heard by Mansfield, P.J., and Danilson and Tabor, JJ.

2 DANILSON, J. Nancy Hennigar appeals the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the decision of the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner denying her claim for benefits from the Second Injury Fund of Iowa. The

commissioner concluded the Fund is not required to pay compensation under Iowa Code section 85.64 (2001) because the first injury sustained by Hennigar did not result in permanent loss of use of either eye, and the second injury sustained by Hennigar was to her body as a whole rather than a scheduled member. The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. On appeal, we agree with the district court and conclude substantial evidence supports the determination that Hennigar did not meet her burden to prove a prior permanent loss of use of either eye as a first qualifying injury. We therefore affirm the district court order upholding the commissioner's denial of Hennigar's petition for Fund benefits. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Between 1996 and 2001, Hennigar was employed at several businesses in the Mason City area as a cosmetologist and cosmetology teacher. During this time, she experienced various conditions in both eyes, including dry eye, conjunctivitis, and dacrocystitis, which she attributed to her cosmetology work. In or before November 2001, Hennigar also experienced contact dermatitis on her upper extremities, which she attributed to her cosmetology work. In February and April 2002, Hennigar filed several petitions with the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner seeking benefits from three former

3 employers and the Second Injury Fund of Iowa for her injuries. 1 Hennigar sought recovery from the Fund under the provisions of Iowa Code section 85.63 et. seq., alleging her eye condition constituted a first qualifying injury and her contact dermatitis constituted a second qualifying injury. The case went to hearing

before a deputy commissioner on July 7, 2003, who rendered a proposed decision on September 5, 2003. The proposed decision held Hennigar's eye condition did not constitute a first qualifying injury under Iowa Code section 85.64, because Hennigar had failed to establish permanent loss of use of either eye. Without a qualifying first injury, Hennigar could take nothing from the Fund. The proposed decision further held that Hennigar's contact dermatitis did not constitute a second qualifying injury, because the injury was to the body as a whole, and not a scheduled member as required to invoke Fund liability. Hennigar appealed to the workers' compensation commissioner, who adopted the proposed decision on December 23, 2003. Hennigar filed a request for rehearing, which was denied except for the request for additional analysis, in which the commissioner reiterated the deputy's finding that the contact dermatitis was a body as whole condition. Hennigar sought judicial review, and the district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. Hennigar now appeals. II. Scope of Review. An appeal of a workers' compensation decision is reviewed under standards described in chapter 17A. Iowa Code

Download NANCY LEE HENNIGAR, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent-App

Iowa Law