Sterling Commercial Roofing, Inc. and Zurich North America v. Joseph Berzle ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0351
Filed December 23, 2015
STERLING COMMERCIAL ROOFING, INC. and ZURICH NORTH AMERICA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
JOSEPH BERZLE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Dustria A. Relph,
Judge.
The employer appeals from the district court’s ruling on judicial review
affirming the workers’ compensation commissioner’s findings of permanent
impairment. AFFIRMED.
Sasha L. Monthei of Scheldrup Blades, Cedar Rapids, for appellants.
Matthew J. Petrzelka of Petrzelka & Breitbach, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Employer Sterling Commercial Roofing and its insurer Zurich North
America (employer) appeal from the district court’s ruling on judicial review
upholding the workers’ compensation commissioner’s findings that Joseph Berzle
sustained a work-related injury to his left shoulder, which resulted in his
permanent total disability.
The employer appeals, contending there is not substantial evidence
supporting the finding that Berzle proved a permanent left shoulder injury arising
from work activities. We review the fact-findings of the agency for the existence
of substantial supporting evidence. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f) (2015). This
standard does not allow us to “engage in a scrutinizing analysis.” Neal v. Annett
Holdings, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 512, 525 (Iowa 2012).
The commissioner adopted the findings of the deputy conducting the
arbitration hearing.
Dr. Neiman found claimant’s current left shoulder condition
was caused by both his July 20, 2012, traumatic work injury in
lifting the heavy boards, as well as a repetitive motion overuse of
the left shoulder while compensating for his previous right shoulder
injury. Dr. Neiman conducted a detailed examination. His opinion
that claimant’s current left shoulder condition is causally related to
his work and the work injury is more in keeping with the rest of the
evidence, including claimant’s credible testimony, whereas the
conclusions of Dr. Gorsche and Dr. Garrels are inconsistent with
the rest of the evidence. Greater weight will be given to the
conclusions of Dr. Neiman. It is concluded claimant’s current left
shoulder condition is causally related to his work, and has resulted
in permanent disability.
These findings are supported by the record evidence. See id. at 527 (“[F]actual
findings are not insubstantial merely because evidence supports a different
conclusion or because we may have reached a different conclusion.”).
3
The employer next argues that even if substantial evidence supports the
finding of a permanent work-related injury, the conclusion that Berzle is
permanently and totally disabled is illogical, irrational, or wholly unjustifiable.
“Industrial disability is determined by an evaluation of the employee’s earning
capacity.” Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839, 852 (Iowa
2011). The issue raises a mixed question of law and fact. Neal, 814 N.W.2d at
525. The commissioner’s industrial disability determination involves the
application of law to fact, which we will not overturn unless it is “irrational,
illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Id. at 526; accord Larson Mfg. Co., Inc. v.
Thorson, 763 N.W.2d 842, 856–57 (Iowa 2009).
The commissioner noted Berzle is fifty-six years old and has worked most
of his adult life as a roofer. He dropped out of high school due to poor grades
and “has no special skills other than his roofing experience.” Berzle has “severe”
work restrictions, including “a prohibition against lifting more than two pounds,
which basically prohibits [Berzle] from working at most physical labor jobs.” The
commissioner concluded Berzle’s injury “has resulted in a drastic, complete loss
of earnings.”
Claimant has shown that, due to his injury, he is no longer able to
return to any job he has done in the past, and specifically cannot
return to roofing work, which he has done for 32 years. He cannot
do any physical work involving lifting over two pounds. His limited
education and lack of skills, combined with his severe work
restrictions and his age of 56, which would work against him when
competing with other, non-disabled workers for jobs, compels the
conclusion there are no jobs claimant could reasonably be
expected to perform.
It is concluded claimant, as a result of his work injury of July
20, 2012, is permanently and totally disabled.
4
The conclusion that Berzle had a complete loss of earning capacity is not
irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. See Neal, 814 N.W.2d at 527 (“[I]n
considering findings of industrial disability, we recognize that the commissioner is
routinely called upon to make such assessments and has a special expertise in
the area that is entitled to respect by a reviewing court.”). We affirm.
AFFIRMED.