IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 

No. 55 / 06–2063 

Filed August 8, 2008 

GRINNELL COLLEGE and

THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES,

 Appellants, 

vs. 

RON OSBORN,

 Appellee. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. 

Rosenberg, Judge. 

 Employer appeals judicial review decision affirming award of benefits 

by worker’s compensation commissioner. AFFIRMED. 

 David L. Jenkins of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., 

Des Moines, for appellants. 

 Paul J. McAndrew, Jr. of Paul McAndrew Law Firm, Coralville, for 

appellee. 

 
2

PER CURIAM.

 The worker’s compensation commissioner awarded the appellee, Ron 

Osborn, permanent and total disability benefits, finding his injuries arose 

out of and in the course of his employment by the appellant, Grinnell 

College. This decision was affirmed by the district court on judicial review. 

Grinnell College and its worker’s compensation insurer, appellant The 

Cincinnati Insurance Companies, filed this appeal. We affirm. 

 Osborn worked for Grinnell College for many years, initially as a 

custodian and then, when he began to have shoulder problems from the 

repetitive overhead work required by that position, he transferred to the 

grounds department. On August 15, 2000, Osborn worked with other 

employees to spread three truckloads of pea gravel around some playground 

equipment. Subsequently, he became ill and was eventually diagnosed with 

a Campylobacter bacterial infection. He now suffers from chronic fatigue 

syndrome and has not worked since September 10, 2000. 

 Osborn filed this worker’s compensation action, claiming (1) he 

suffered a cumulative injury to his shoulder while working as a custodian; 

and (2) he contracted a Campylobacter bacterial infection from contaminated 

pea gravel and his current condition and disability was a consequence of this 

infection. After a hotly contested hearing that included the testimony of 

several experts with varying opinions, the deputy found Osborn sustained a 

cumulative injury to his right shoulder on August 10, 1999, and that his 

bacterial infection arose out of and in the course of his employment. The 

deputy awarded healing period and permanent partial disability benefits for 

the shoulder injury based on a twenty-percent industrial disability. Osborn 

was awarded additional healing period and permanent partial disability 

benefits based on a finding he sustained a forty-percent industrial disability 

as a result of his bacterial infection and its sequela. 
3

On intra-agency appeal, the commissioner affirmed the deputy’s 

decision, as modified. The commissioner modified the decision to hold the 

combined effect of Osborn’s two injuries caused him to become permanently 

and totally disabled. The commissioner’s decision was affirmed by the 

district court on judicial review. 

 On appeal to this court, the employer challenges five findings made by 

the commissioner: (1) that Osborn’s infection was contracted from the pea 

gravel; (2) that Osborn was permanently and totally disabled; (3) that certain 

medical expenses were related to Osborn’s treatment for his bacterial illness; 

(4) that Osborn sustained an injury to his right shoulder on August 10, 

1999; and (5) that Osborn suffered from a permanent disability as a result of 

his shoulder injury. With respect to each specification of error, the employer 

claims 

the commissioner failed to properly interpret controlling legal 

principles, employed irrational reasoning and acted arbitrarily, 

capriciously, and with abuse of discretion in finding facts and 

applying law to those facts, and further that the facts (even as 

found by the agency) are inadequate to satisfy the governing 

legal standards. 

See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10) (2001) (setting forth standards for review of 

agency decisions in contested cases). 

We have considered in detail each of the arguments made by the 

employer with respect to each specification of error and conclude there is no 

basis upon which to reverse the commissioner’s award of benefits. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part. 

This is not a published opinion.