IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-1094

Filed August 4, 2021

MIRZA CUFUROVIC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TYSON FOODS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. 

Harris, Judge.

Tyson Foods, Inc. appeals the district court’s reversal of the workers 

compensation commissioner’s decision affirming an arbitration decision by the 

deputy commissioner. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Jason P. Wiltfang of Scheldrup Wiltfang Corridorlaw Group Iowa P.C., 

Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Joshua M. Moon of Dutton, Daniels, Hines, Kalkhoff, Cook & Swanson, 

P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellee.

Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

MAY, Presiding Judge.

Mirza Cuforvic claims she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits 

because of a back injury she allegedly suffered during her employment with Tyson 

Foods, Inc. The deputy commissioner concluded Cuforvic had not met her burden 

of proof. The commissioner affirmed. The district court reversed. Tyson appeals

the district court’s determination. 

Our review is shaped “by the deference we are statutorily obligated to afford 

the commissioner's findings of fact.” Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House, 843 N.W.2d 885, 

889 (Iowa 2014). “The legislature has by a provision of law vested the 

commissioner with the discretion to make factual determinations.” Id.; see also id. 

(noting medical causation is among the factual questions “vested in the 

commissioner’s discretion”). As the “trier of fact,” it is the commissioner’s duty “to 

determine the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and decide the facts 

in issue.” Arndt v. City of Le Claire, 728 N.W.2d 389, 394–95 (Iowa 2007). “We 

are bound by the commissioner’s factual determinations if they are supported by 

‘substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed as 

a whole.’” Mike Brooks, Inc., 843 N.W.2d at 889 (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19 

(10)(f) (2009)); see also Sellers v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 1995) (“The administrative process presupposes judgment calls are to be 

left to the agency. Nearly all disputes are won or lost there.” (citation omitted)).

Here, the deputy commissioner received causation opinions from three 

physicians: Dr. Robert L. Gordon, Dr. Trevor R. Schmitz, and Dr. Arnold E. 

Delbridge. Dr. Delbidge’s opinion supported Cuforovic’s claim of a work-related 

injury. But the deputy commissioner discounted Dr. Delbridge’s opinion because—
3

based on other evidence in the record and the deputy commissioner’s credibility 

determinations—the deputy commissioner believed Dr. Delbridge misunderstood 

Cuforovic’s work duties. Specifically, the deputy commissioner believed 

Dr. Delbridge’s opinion significantly overstated Cuforovic’s lifting duties. 

Conversely, the deputy commissioner found Dr. Schmitz and Dr. Gordon had relied 

on “the most accurate work history” for Cuforovic. Their opinions were “most 

consistent with the facts surrounding” Cuforovic’s duties as the deputy 

commissioner understood them. And their opinions were contrary to Cuforovic’s 

claim. Dr. Gordon observed that “[t]he history as provided to [him] by Ms. Cufurovic 

and the records that [he] reviewed do not support her current condition being work 

related.” Dr. Schmitz opined Cuforvic’s “alleged back condition is related to 

personal conditions that are unrelated to her job duties.” These opinions provided

substantial evidence to support the deputy commissioner’s conclusion that 

Cufurovic “failed to carry her burden of proof to establish that her low back injury 

arose out of and in the course of her employment with Tyson.” Likewise, these

opinions provided substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s order 

affirming the deputy commissioner’s determinations and dismissing Cufurovic’s 

petition. 

As the district court found, however, the record might also have supported 

different factual determinations and a different outcome. But it is not our role to

“determine whether the evidence supports a different finding.” Cedar Rapids 

Cmty. School Dist. v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839, 845 (Iowa 2011); see also Arndt, 

728 N.W.2d at 394 (noting courts should not decide whether certain “evidence 

‘trumps’ other evidence or whether one piece of evidence is ‘qualitatively weaker’
4

than another piece of evidence”). Rather, our role is simply to “determine[] whether 

substantial evidence supports” the commissioner’s findings “according to those

witnesses whom the [commissioner] believed.” Arndt, 728 N.W.2d at 395 (second 

alteration in original) (citation omitted); see Pease, 807 N.W.2d at 845 (noting “our 

task is to determine whether substantial evidence, viewing the record as a whole, 

supports the findings actually made”). The opinions of Dr. Schmitz and Dr. Gordon 

provided the necessary support. 

We reverse and remand for entry of a judgment affirming the commission. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.