Opinion ID: 1837467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Evidence vs. Abuse of Discretion

Text: The first issue raised for our review is whether the district court erred in reviewing the commissioner's decision for an abuse of discretion, as opposed to substantial evidence. We reject Waters' claim that the district court erred in failing to review for substantial evidence. The substantial-evidence standard only applies to factual findings. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( f ) (authorizing reversal or modification on judicial review when the commissioner's decision is [b]ased upon a determination of fact clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record ....) (emphasis added). Whether Waters' application for workers' compensation benefits sufficiently informed the Hospitals of the possibility of a cumulative injury claim [1] is not, first and foremost, a factual issue, but rather a matter within the agency's discretion. See Stephenson v. Furnas Elec. Co., 522 N.W.2d 828, 831 (Iowa 1994) (The imposition of sanctions by administrative agencies is discretionary.). We agree with the district court that the proper standard of review is for an abuse of discretion, not substantial evidence.