Opinion ID: 1642846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commissioner's Ruling.

Text: Lauhoff argues that, even if evidence of impairment of the body as a whole was in the record, the industrial commissioner made no such finding. It claims he merely found there was an injury to the hip socket by reason of the surgical procedure and concluded from that fact alone that there was an impairment of the body as a whole. This, it contends, was error; an injury does not per se amount to an impairment. The commissioner, after reciting portions of the evidence, found the following facts: 1. On June 21, 1978 claimant suffered a work injury to the femoral neck of the left leg. 2. Deterioration of the femur head lead to corrective surgery. 3. On November 11, 1980 Dr. Miller replaced claimant's left hip joint. 4. The surgery involved constructing a new socket in the acetabulum. 5. The acetabulum is an area of the body extending beyond the hip joint. 6. The surgical procedure has extended claimant's disability to the body as a whole. 7. As a result of the work injury, claimant is entitled to compensation for an industrial disability. (Emphasis added.) Lauhoff points to the emphasized finding, number 6, in arguing that the industrial commissioner had erroneously ruled that the surgery alone was tantamount to a disability to the body as a whole. One of the basic principles of judicial review in workers' compensation cases is that, because the commissioner is the fact finder, his findings are binding on the court if supported by substantial evidence. Ward v. Iowa Department of Transportation, 304 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Iowa 1981); Second Injury Fund v. Mich Coal Co., 274 N.W.2d 300, 303 (Iowa 1979). We will broadly and liberally apply those findings in order to uphold, rather than defeat, the commissioner's decision. Ward, 304 N.W.2d at 237; Holmes v. Bruce Motor Freight, Inc., 215 N.W.2d 296, 298 (Iowa 1974). Even when the commissioner's ruling is read in light of these principles, however, we cannot say with certainty that his findings of disability to the body as a whole were based upon actual impairment of the hip, rather than on the surgical intrusion alone, as the ruling suggests. We therefore remand for a determination, on the record already made, on the question of impairment of the body as a whole. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. All Justices concur except NEUMAN, J., who takes no part.