IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1924

Filed August 19, 2015

MENARD, INC. and ZURICH INS. CO.,

Plaintiff-Appellants,

vs.

KENNETH FENTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J. Ovrom, 

Judge.

An employer appeals a district court order affirming the decision of the 

worker’s compensation commissioner. AFFIRMED.

Charles A. Blades of Scheldrup Blades Schrock Smith P.C., Cedar 

Rapids, for appellant.

Nicholas W. Platt of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, J.

Thirty-eight-year-old Kenneth Fenton sustained a back injury in November 

2010 while working as an operator on an assembly line at Menard, Inc. A deputy 

commissioner determined Fenton experienced “a 50 percent loss of earning 

capacity or industrial disability.” The deputy awarded him permanent partial 

disability benefits. The commissioner affirmed the arbitration decision and 

adopted it in full.

Menard, Inc. and its insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance 

Company (“Menard”), sought judicial review of the agency decision. The district 

court affirmed.

On appeal, Menard contends the fifty percent industrial disability 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence and is an irrational, 

illogical, and wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact. See Iowa Code 

§ 17A.19(10)(f), (m) (2013). Menard specifically asserts “[t]he commissioner 

failed to compare the condition of the Claimant’s low back before the work injury 

with the condition of his low back after having undergone surgery” or his earning 

capacity before and after the injury.

To the contrary, the deputy commissioner summarized Fenton’s medical 

history, including his back problems, and found “no evidence [Fenton] had any 

permanent impairment prior to this 2010 injury.” The deputy’s finding is 

supported by substantial evidence. See Holdings v. Allen, No. 12-0388, 2012 

WL 4900464, at *6-7 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2012) (finding substantial evidence 

supported commissioner’s award of fifty-percent industrial disability to a thirtyeight year-old claimant who sustained an injury to the discs in his spinal cord); 
3

Fitzpatrick v. Square D, No. 08-0945, 2009 WL 779045, at *4-5 (Iowa Ct. App. 

Mar. 26, 2009) (finding substantial evidence to support deputy commissioner’s 

finding that the claimant “had a long history of back problems preceding her work 

injury”). 

The deputy also enumerated Fenton’s earnings in the year of his injury 

and in ensuing years. The deputy found Fenton had been moved to a “floater” 

job, which “was not a permanent position at the time of the hearing.” Again, 

these findings are supported by substantial evidence. 

No useful purpose would be served by summarizing the evidence. See 

Arndt v. City of Le Claire, 728 N.W.2d 389, 394-95 (Iowa 2007) (stating it is the 

commissioner’s duty, not ours, to “determine the credibility of the witnesses, 

weigh the evidence, and decide the facts in issue.”); Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools 

Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Iowa 1995) (noting reviewing courts are not to 

apply “scrutinizing analysis” to the commissioner’s findings). Having found 

substantial evidentiary support for the commissioner’s key determinations, we 

also conclude the commissioner’s application of law to fact was not irrational, 

illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.

Like the district court, we affirm the commissioner’s workers’ 

compensation decision in favor of Fenton.

AFFIRMED.