Opinion ID: 1703375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Temporary Benefits After Voluntary Quit.

Text: Relying on Iowa Code section 85.33(3), the commissioner ruled Schutjer was barred from receiving benefits as of January 5, 2003, the date that Algona Manor claims she voluntarily quit her employment. In pertinent part, this statute provides: If an employee is temporarily, partially disabled and the employer for whom the employee was working at the time of injury offers to the employee suitable work consistent with the employee's disability the employee shall accept the suitable work, and be compensated with temporary partial benefits. If the employee refuses to accept the suitable work with the same employer, the employee shall not be compensated with temporary partial, temporary total, or healing period benefits during the period of the refusal. Iowa Code § 85.33(3). In this case, the commissioner made the following factual finding: The employer was accommodating claimant's modified duty restrictions during [the time after the December 2, 2002 incident.] In addition, the commissioner stated the evidence established that Schutjer voluntarily quit her employment on January 5, 2003. There is no other discussion in the findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the incident on January 5, 2003. In reviewing the commissioner's decision, the district court held `the greater weight of the objective credible evidence' indicated [Schutjer] resigned her CNA position with Algona Care on January 5, 2003. The district court then went on to discuss the facts found in the record that supported the commissioner's finding on this issue. It noted the factual discrepancies between the parties with respect to what occurred on January 5. Schutjer asserted she was asked to perform tasks not within her restrictions and denied the allegation by the charge nurse at Algona Manor that sheSchutjerstormed out of the facility after announcing she had quit. At another point in her testimony, however, Schutjer stated: That isn't why I quit, an assertion that seems to confirm the nurse's statement that Schutjer quit. In contrast to Schutjer's testimony, Algona Manor witnesses testified Schutjer was excused from performing tasks not within her restrictionssuch as cleaning bedpans and commode bucketsand that she was only required to clean urinals, a task within her restrictions. The district court correctly noted that, when there are two competing accounts of a single event, the commissioner has the responsibility to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. See Terwilliger, 529 N.W.2d at 273. The court concluded substantial evidence supported the finding made by the commissioner. The court of appeals, however, stated the issue was not whether Schutjer voluntarily quit, but whether Schutjer was offered suitable work within her restrictions and whether she refused it. Only if she was offered such work and refused it would she be precluded from receiving temporary partial, temporary total, or healing period benefits. Concluding the agency failed to clearly address this issue, the court of appeals remanded the case so the commissioner could make this determination. We agree the correct test is (1) whether the employee was offered suitable work, (2) which the employee refused. If so, benefits cannot be awarded, as provided in section 85.33(3). We conclude, however, that the commissioner found Schutjer was offered suitable work that she refused, and for that reason, Schutjer was not entitled to benefits as specified under section 85.33(3). Although the commissioner's decision is nearly devoid of any discussion of the issue of modified duty and adherence to work restrictions, he expressly found that the employer was accommodating Schutjer's modified duty restrictions during this time. Substantial evidence supported this conclusion. The commissioner's finding that Schutjer voluntarily quit satisfied the second requirement of section 85.33(3)refusal of suitable work. Schutjer argues, nonetheless, that any refusal of suitable work ended on January 6, 2003, when she talked to the supervisor and denied that she had quit, asserting the charge nurse had fired her. This factual disputewhether Schutjer quit or was firedwas resolved against her. Therefore, Algona Manor was justified in accepting Schutjer's voluntary quit on January 5, 2003, as a rejection of suitable work on that date and any future date. We conclude the findings required by section 85.33(3) were made by the commissioner, and these findings enjoy substantial support in the record. Therefore, we vacate the court of appeals' contrary decision and affirm the decision of the district court on this issue.