Opinion ID: 2180835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Workmen's compensation appeals in Iowa are provided for by chapter 86 of the Code, 1966.

Text: Section 86.29 provides: The transcript as certified and filed by the industrial commissioner shall be the record on which the appeal shall be heard, and no additional evidence shall be heard. In the absence of fraud the findings of fact made by the industrial commissioner within his powers shall be conclusive. Section 86.30 provides: Any order or decision of the industrial commissioner may be modified, reversed, or set aside on one or more of the following grounds and on no other:    3. If the facts found by the commissioner do not support the order or decree. 4. If there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order or decision. The general rules governing workmen's compensation appeals have been considered and discussed in Musselman v. Central Telephone Co., Iowa, 154 N.W.2d 128, and Bodish v. Fischer, Inc., 257 Iowa 516, 133 N.W.2d 867, and citations. It is claimant's burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury or death of the employee arose out of and in the course of employment. The commissioner's findings of fact have the effect of a jury verdict and, where the evidence is in dispute or where reasonable minds may differ on inferences fairly to be drawn from the disclosed facts, the commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal. On the other hand, if there is no dispute in the facts and different inferences could not be fairly drawn from them, a question of law is presented and the court is not bound by the commissioner's findings and conclusions. Bodish v. Fischer, Inc., supra; Hemker v. Drobney, 253 Iowa 421, 424, 112 N.W.2d 672, 673, 674, and citations; Olson v. Goodyear Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 1115, 125 N.W. 2d 251, 253. Our duty, then, is to determine whether there is sufficient competent evidence to warrant the decision the commissioner made, not whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a decision he did not make. Bergen v. Waterloo Register Co., 260 Iowa 833, 837, 151 N.W.2d 469, 471, and citations; Nelson v. Cities Service Oil Co., 259 Iowa 1209, 1215, 146 N.W.2d 261, 264; Wagner v. Otis Radio & Electric Co., 254 Iowa 990, 993, 119 N.W.2d 751, 752, and citations; Swain v. Monona County, Iowa, 163 N.W.2d 918, 920. The commissioner, not the court, weighs the evidence, and his findings will be broadly and liberally construed to uphold rather than defeat his decision. Wagner v. Otis Radio & Electric Co., supra; 100 C.J. S. Workmen's Compensation § 757, p. 1145, and § 763(2), pp. 1175-1177. II. The vital question here presented is whether claimant sustained her burden to show that her husband died as a result of trauma rather than from natural causes. In order to prevail here, the record must disclose this fact as a matter of law. The matter of causal connection between decedent's fatal heart attack and this accident is not within the knowledge and experience of ordinary laymen, but is a question as to which only a medical expert can express an intelligent opinion. Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 383, 101 N.W.2d 167, 171; Bodish v. Fischer, Inc., supra, 257 Iowa 516, 521, 133 N.W.2d 867, 870; and citations in each case. Dr. Larimer testified: I would find no way of telling medically on the basis of information at hand which occurred first, the fibrillation or the wrecked truck and stated if the fibrillation took place first, then it could be assumed that it was caused by ischemia (blood deficiency), which would be as rational a conclusion as that it was caused by trauma. He further stated that to say whether the fibrillation was caused by trauma or blood deficiency would be conjectural. Dr. Schissel, the other medical expert, stated it was his opinion under the information presented that there was no causal connection between deceased's death and the accident and that death was not caused by trauma. He also conceded the order of occurrences, i. e., the heart attack and the accident, was in the area of speculation. Viewed most favorable to her, the evidence that the death was caused by the trauma of the accident is only conjectural. Without question Mr. Merchant had suffered from heart disease for some time before this attack, and it appeared his total vascular system was in an advanced stage of disease. Thus, he was subject to a fatal attack with or without trauma, and to recover here claimant had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it occurred as a result of trauma. We hold here an issue of fact was generated and therefore the commissioner's finding against her is conclusive. III. Appellant's contention that causation was shown as a matter of law was properly rejected. Her argument that since the evidence showed Merchant lived several minutes after the accident, which under Dr. Larimer's testimony would have been impossible if the attack preceded the accident, is not persuasive. We agree with the trial court's analysis of this matter when it said: Dr. Larimer was of the opinion that death was caused by cardiac fibrillation and his statement relative to immediate death was based upon this assumption. Dr. Schissel did not so pinpoint the heart difficulty. His testimony referred to cardiac arrest or fibrillation and to a failure of circulation or failure of the heart. And, of course, there was discussion of ischemia or blood deficiency as a causative factor. The Commissioner was not required to accept Dr. Larimer's opinion relative to fibrillation in view of all of the testimony. Furthermore, the significance of the fact that the deceased lived for several minutes was not directly, but hypothetical question or otherwise, posed to either doctor. We have no direct medical testimony, therefore, that this survival time necessarily indicated that the attack followed the accident. It was an inference which the Commissioner could well have drawn from Dr. Larimer's testimony but one which he was not required to draw under the record as made. In this connection we are satisfied that the record is not one which shows causal connection as a matter of law.