John Deere Dubuque Works (John Deere) appeals and Kenneth Caven cross-appeals from a ruling on judicial review by the district court. The workers' compensation commissioner awarded Caven permanent partial disability benefits for occupational hearing loss and also ruled Caven's tinnitus claim was not filed within the statute of limitations. Utilizing the agency's administrative rules, the commissioner ordered John Deere to reimburse Caven for the costs of obtaining a doctor's/practitioner's report. John Deere claims the district court erred in affirming the agency's costs awarded under Iowa Administrative Code Rule 876-4.33 rather than under Iowa Code section 85.39 (2007). Caven claims the district court erred in affirming the agency's statute of limitations determination. We affirm.
In July 2007, Caven filed a workers' compensation petition alleging he suffered occupational hearing loss and tinnitus as a result of his work with John Deere.
After hearing, in September 2008, the deputy ruled Caven's observations about the noise levels in the factory were credible. However, the deputy specifically detailed other portions of Caven's testimony and ruled: "[Caven's] testimony carries little weight and this lack of credibility must be factored in when reviewing the medical evidence in this case."
The deputy awarded permanent partial disability benefits for occupational hearing loss. This ruling is not challenged on appeal. The deputy ruled: "A reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that [Caven] does have tinnitus and that his tinnitus is at least in part related to his work at John Deere." However, the deputy determined Caven's tinnitus claim was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations. The deputy awarded Caven $150.00 of the $972.00 claimed costs for the report of Dr. Tyler.
After his de novo review and after noting that "my ability to find the true facts that are affected by witness demeanor and credibility cannot be expected to be superior to that of the [presiding] deputy," the commissioner affirmed and adopted the deputy's arbitration decision, "except for the denial of the costs of Dr. Tyler's report." The commissioner awarded $972.00 to Caven under Iowa Administrative Code rule 876-4.33(6).
In July 2009, Caven sought rehearing on the tinnitus issue. Caven argued the commissioner's appeal decision did not specifically address whether the decision in Midwest Ambulance Service v. Ruud, 754 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2008), compelled a different result. Cavin contended: "In 1997, [he] did not appreciate the nature, seriousness, or probable compensable character of his tinnitus claim because that condition had no adverse impact on [his] employability." In August 2009, the commissioner ruled:
In October 2010, the district court affirmed the commissioner's appeal decision. John Deere now appeals the basis for the costs awarded and Caven cross-appeals the statute of limitations issue.
Iowa Code section 17A.19 lists the instances when a court may, on judicial review, reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action. "In exercising its judicial review power, the district court acts in an appellate capacity." Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 463 (Iowa 2004). 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." Id. at 464.
In July 2009, the commissioner ordered full reimbursement for the costs of Dr. Tyler's report under Iowa Administrative Code rule 876-4.33(6), stating:
(Emphasis added.)
In August 2009, John Deere appealed to the district court arguing it should only be required to pay $150.00. After argument in February 2010, the district court ruled: "The Court agrees with the interpretation of the administrative code by the Commissioner and hereby orders [John Deere] to pay the full sum of the expense of the cost to obtain the medical report in the amount of $972.00." (Emphasis added.)
In this appeal, John Deere "agrees that [Caven] is entitled to be reimbursed for Dr. Tyler's entire expert fee of $972.00."
"We review a commissioner's interpretation of agency rules to determine whether the interpretation is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable." Zieckler v. Ampride, 743 N.W.2d 530, 532 (Iowa 2007).
Caven argues John Deere's concession makes the costs issue moot and we need not address it because John Deere has agreed to payment in full. We "do not decide cases when the underlying controversy is moot." Grinnell Coll. v. Osborn, 751 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Iowa 2008). However, Caven admits "[t]here is no doubt that the decision in Mr. Caven's case was a change in agency practice." John Deere argues the costs issue is not moot and our analysis "is of wide interest among lawyers who regularly practice in the area of workers' compensation."
We conclude that "[w]hile this appeal is a purely private action, the issues presented currently lack authoritative adjudication." See id. at 399 (recognizing the desirability of an authoritative adjudication to guide public officials in their future conduct). Therefore, we turn to the relevant statutes and administrative rules.
"The primary purpose of the workers' compensation statute is to benefit the worker and his or her dependents, insofar as statutory requirements permit." McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181, 188 (Iowa 1980). Therefore, we "liberally construe workers' compensation statutes in favor of the worker." Ewing v. Allied Constr. Servs., 592 N.W.2d 689, 691 (Iowa 1999).
We recently addressed the employer's reimbursement obligations under Iowa Code section 85.39 and ruled:
Dodd v. Fleetguard, Inc., 759 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Iowa Ct.App.2008) (emphasis added). In Dodd, we noted the purpose behind section 85.39 can be explained by the unequal financial position of the parties and ruled: "Section 85.39 does not include an implied requirement that the claimant ultimately prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment." Id. Therefore, section 85.39 and our recent case law discuss the employer's obligation to pay for the examination. See id. Section 85.39 does not contain language specifically addressing "costs" for witness testimony, deposition testimony, or written reports. See Iowa Code § 85.39.
We turn to Iowa Code section 86.40, which does specifically address the workers' compensation agency's award of costs and provides: "All costs incurred in the hearing before the commissioner shall be taxed in the discretion of the commissioner." Therefore, determining the appropriate taxation of costs is a matter specifically delegated by the legislature to the discretion of the agency.
Further, the legislature has vested the commissioner with the authority to promulgate rules and procedures to implement Iowa Code chapter 86. Iowa Code § 86.8(1). We give appropriate deference to the commissioner's promulgation of rules. Zieckler, 743 N.W.2d at 532.
The agency's rules address the costs of witness testimony, deposition testimony,
Iowa Admin. Code r. 876-4.33.
In awarding costs to Caven under this rule, the commissioner noted the workers' compensation agency had recently been admonished to follow the plain language of its rules by the Iowa Supreme Court in Boehme, which instructed:
Boehme, 762 N.W.2d at 146 (citations omitted) (holding the administrative rule clearly states an issue will not be considered on appeal to the commissioner if it was not presented to the deputy; therefore, the commissioner erred in concluding a ruling from the deputy is required to preserve error).
As in Boehme, we conclude Iowa Administrative Code rule 876-4.33(6) is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, we agree with the commissioner and the district court that Caven's claim for reimbursement for Dr. Tyler's report can be awarded, in the commissioner's discretion, as a cost under Iowa Code section 86.40 and Iowa Administrative Code rule 876-4.33(6). The commissioner's interpretation of its agency rule is not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. See Zieckler, 743 N.W.2d at 532.
Caven argues his tinnitus claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. The district court affirmed the commissioner, stating:
Factual questions in workers' compensation are "delegated by the legislature to the commissioner." Larson Mfg. Co. v. Thorson, 763 N.W.2d 842, 850 (Iowa 2009). Therefore, we do not apply a "scrutinizing analysis" to the commissioner's factual findings. Ruud, 754 N.W.2d 860, 866 (Iowa 2008). Rather, "[f]actual findings of the commissioner are reversed only if they are not supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 864. The question "is not whether the evidence supports different [factual] findings than those made by the commissioner, but whether the evidence supports the findings actually made." Thorson, 763 N.W.2d at 850. "The burden on the party who was unsuccessful before the commissioner is not satisfied by a showing that the decision was debatable, or even that a preponderance of evidence supports a contrary view." Ruud, 754 N.W.2d at 865. "The application of the law to the facts is also an enterprise vested in the commissioner." Thorson, 763 N.W.2d at 850. "Accordingly, we reverse only if the commissioner's application was irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable." Id.
We conclude the district court properly focused its consideration on whether the evidence supports the decision made, not whether it supports a different decision. "The question of whether a claimant knew, or should have known, of the nature, seriousness, and probable compensability of [his] injury is a question of fact to be determined by the commissioner." Ruud, 754 N.W.2d at 865. Caven's knowledge of the three triggering factors "may be actual or imputed from the record." See Thorson, 763 N.W.2d at 854-55 (stating claimant "deemed to know" the three factors "when she knows her physical condition is serious enough to have permanent adverse impact on her employment or employability"). After our review of the record as a whole, we agree with the district court. See Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 2009) (stating we review "to determine if our conclusions are the same").
