IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1712

Filed August 7, 2019

HEDAYAT KHALDAR SAGHIR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

MENARDS,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David May, Judge.

An employee appeals the district court’s decision upholding the worker’s 

compensation commissioner’s finding of no permanent disability. AFFIRMED.

Randall P. Schueller of Loney & Schueller, LLC, West Des Moines, for 

appellant.

Cynthia S. Sueppel and Lindsey E. Mills of Smith Mills Schrock Blades 

Montei, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Vogel, S.J.* May, J., takes no 

part.

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2

BOWER, Judge.

Hedayat Khaldar Saghir appeals the district court ruling on judicial review,

upholding the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s decision. Khaldar 

Saghir claims the district court erred in finding he did not establish permanent 

impairment and requests a determination of industrial disability. We affirm the 

decision of the district court and the commissioner.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

Khaldar Saghir moved to the United States in 2006. He earned a college 

degree in civil engineering in 1996; however, since moving here he has worked as 

a forklift driver, house cleaner, pizza deliverer, handyman, and in the lumberyard 

at Menards. He has sustained a number of injuries over the years.

In 2007, Khaldar Saghir sustained a back injury from a lifting injury due to 

his employment. In 2008, he was involved in a work-related forklift collision, which 

he claimed resulted in head and neck injuries. He had a CT scan of his head and 

spine, which came back normal. 

In 2010, Khaldar Saghir was involved in a car accident while delivering pizza 

in the course of his employment. He initially complained of head, neck, and back 

injuries. He had CT scans and x-rays, which came back normal. He returned to 

the hospital multiple times in the following months complaining of head pain, 

blurred and double vision, hearing issues, and persistent memory problems. He

was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome. He received medical treatment 

relating to the accident through November 2013. Neuropsychological testing in 

2010, 2011, and 2013 noted Khaldar Saghir claimed symptoms atypical of 

concussive brain damage. The records reveal the evaluators did not consider 
3

Khaldar Saghir to be putting forth sufficient effort for an accurate diagnosis and 

specifically noted motivational factors affecting the tests. CT and MRI scans 

performed for a variety of complaints all showed normal function.

Khaldar Saghir began working in the lumberyard at Menards in 2013. On 

January 1, 2015, Khaldar Saghir incurred a work-related injury when a piece of 

lumber fell on his head during the course of his employment. Khaldar Saghir 

received medical treatment and temporary disability workers’ compensation 

benefits. CT and MRI scans of his head, neck, and back had normal results, aside 

from a slight bulging disk in his neck not related to his claimed symptoms. By midFebruary, his treating neurologist recommended he return to at least light duty and 

opined most of his symptoms related more to depression than any physical result 

of the injury. In April and May, Khaldar Saghir participated in occupational therapy 

for his vision and sensory symptoms.

On February 11, 2015, Khaldar Saghir filed a workers’ compensation 

petition. He moved to Florida in May or June. In June, Khaldar Saghir underwent 

a neuropsychological evaluation. His test results and complaints were found to be 

inconsistent with the injury sustained, and behavioral observations conflicted with 

test performance. On August 3, the neurologist determined Khaldar Saghir was at 

maximum medical improvement and in need of no further treatment. The 

neurologist opined no permanent neurological impairment was sustained and 

imposed no permanent work restrictions.

At the arbitration hearing on March 30, 2016, Khaldar Saghir and Menards 

stipulated the injury was work related and caused temporary disability during a 

recovery period. The parties disputed the permanent nature of any disability, 
4

Khaldar Saghir’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits, and whether Khaldar 

Saghir sustained an industrial disability. 

Khaldar Saghir testified he injured his head, neck, and back and developed 

vision problems from the 2015 lumberyard injury. He indicated he needed help 

with almost all activities on a daily basis and was totally dependent on care from 

his family. He specified he still suffered from memory problems, balance issues, 

inability to sleep, significant pain, sporadic vomiting, vision problems, and 

headaches. Khaldar Saghir testified he had not worked or looked for work since 

the 2015 injury. He did not try to return to work at Menards or contact them about 

work after the injury. 

Khaldar Saghir offered as proof of his impairment two medical reports from 

October 2015 (by Dr. Robert Mandelkorn, an eye physician and surgeon) and 

January 2016 (Dr. Sunil Bansal). The October report concerned his vision. 

Khaldar Saghir told Dr. Mandelkorn he had a suffered a traumatic brain injury, and 

the doctor found significant loss of function in his eyes and prescribed glasses. 

The second report was an independent medical examination (IME) performed by 

Dr. Bansal. The IME report does not list the records relating to the 2010 head and 

neck injury and treatment as among the medical records reviewed. The IME report 

assigned impairment ratings for the head injury and vision, gait, and neck

problems. The IME report recommended restrictions requiring sedentary work.

A deputy commissioner concluded Khaldar Saghir did not establish “any 

permanent injury or loss of earnings capacity” from the 2015 injury. In particular, 

the deputy found Khaldar Saghir “was not a credible witness” and noted, “Although 

it is possible that the claimant’s demeanor was the result of brain injury it was very 
5

consistent with a deliberate effort to exaggerate and conceal.” The deputy also 

found the exclusion of the 2010 injury from the IME to be “a critical omission.” On 

intra-agency appeal, the commissioner affirmed. Khaldar Saghir sought judicial 

review, and the district court upheld the commissioner’s ruling. Khaldar Saghir 

appeals.

II. Analysis

We review a district court decision in a workers’ compensation case to 

determine if we would reach the same conclusion. Warren Props. v. Stewart, 864 

N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa 2015). We only reverse the commissioner’s factual 

findings if they are not supported by substantial evidence. Coffey v. Mid Seven 

Transp. Co., 831 N.W.2d 81, 89 (Iowa 2013). “‘Substantial evidence’ means the 

quantity and quality of evidence that would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, 

detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue . . . .” Iowa Code 

§ 17A.19(10)(f)(1) (2018). “[W]e give due regard to the commissioner’s discretion 

to accept or reject testimony based on his assessment of witness credibility.” 

Schutjer v. Algona Manor Care Ctr., 780 N.W.2d 549, 558 (Iowa 2010).

The first issue is whether substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s 

finding Khaldar Saghir failed to prove a permanent disability attributable to the 

Menards injury. Khaldar Saghir claims neck, back, and head injuries, impaired 

vision, and memory loss from the 2015 injury. He claimed similar problems 

following his 2010 injury. While his IME doctor, Dr. Bansal, found permanent 

impairment attributable to the 2015 injury, Khaldar Saghir failed to provide a full 

medical record history or accurately report the concussive brain injury he 

experienced following the 2010 car accident. As noted by the commissioner:
6

Neither Dr. Mandelkorn’s opinions nor Dr. Bansal’s opinions 

considered [Khaldar Saghir’s] alleged work injury in light of [his] 

previous injuries. Without this information, neither physician could 

possibly render a reliable opinion on the causation of any of 

claimant’s symptoms allegedly related to the work injury because it 

was impossible for Drs. Mandelkorn or Bansal to assess whether the 

alleged injuries were attributable to pre-existing conditions or 

whether those alleged injuries were aggravated by claimant’s work 

injury on January 1, 2015.

See Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839, 845 (Iowa 2011)

(“[T]he determination of whether to accept or reject an expert opinion is within the 

‘peculiar province’ of the commissioner.” (citation omitted)). 

Additionally, the deputy commissioner expressly found Khaldar Saghir was 

not a credible witness, which finding was specifically adopted by the commissioner. 

The commissioner found the lack of credibility was supported by the record, noting 

“[Khaldar Saghir’s] deliberate exaggeration and concealment at [the] hearing is 

consistent with his malingering during [ ] medical examinations both in 2010 and 

2015.” Consequently, we find substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s 

finding Khaldar Saghir failed to prove a permanent impairment attributable to the 

2015 Menards injury.

Khaldar Saghir’s second issue is whether we should remand to the 

commissioner for determination of industrial disability or determine it on our own. 

“Industrial disability” refers to the reduction in a claimant’s earning capacity. 

Westling v. Hormel Foods Corp., 810 N.W.2d 247, 253 (Iowa 2012). “The claimant 

must prove the work-related injury caused an industrial disability.” Id. Here, 

substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s finding of no permanent 

impairment attributable to the 2015 injury. We affirm the district court and the 

commissioner on this issue.
7

We affirm the ruling of the district court on judicial review, upholding the 

commissioner.

AFFIRMED.