Opinion ID: 1290227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commissioner's Duty to Explain his Decision

Text: Terwilliger attacks the commissioner's opinion as not being sufficiently detailed and demands that if we reverse and remand, we should instruct the commissioner to weigh all the evidence in the record, state his reasons for rejecting any of the evidence, and detail the path he took to arrive at his decision. We have already said it is the duty of the commissioner to state the evidence he relied on and to detail his reasons for his conclusion. Armstrong v. State of Iowa Bldgs. & Grounds, 382 N.W.2d 161, 166 (Iowa 1986); Catalfo v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 213 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Iowa 1973). While it is true that the commissioner's decision must be sufficiently detailed to show the path he has taken through conflicting evidence, Catalfo, 213 N.W.2d at 510, the law does not require the commissioner to discuss each and every fact in the record and explain why or why not he has rejected it. Such a requirement would be unnecessary and burdensome. In the case at hand, the commissioner has sufficiently detailed and explained his opinion so that we could follow his process of analysis. We note at this juncture that this case has proceeded for six years and has resulted in three opinions of the industrial commissioner, two district court opinions, one court of appeals' decision, and with the completion of this decision, one supreme court opinion. We are concerned with the tone with which Terwilliger has addressed the decision-making of the industrial commissioner and the courts of this state throughout this process. An excerpt from Terwilliger's brief before this court is illustrative of the problem: [A]s Terwilliger sees it, the greater challenge for the appellate court is not necessarily whether it can avoid the temptation of falling back on the substantial evidence rubberstamp, (as appellate courts having [sic] been doing in many cases and as the trial court did here). Rather, the greater challenge for the appellate court is how to construct remand instructions which will dissuade the commissioner from his practice of fabricating decisional sleights by which to reject the lay evidence of subjective impairment. In Terwilliger's brief before this court, Terwilliger's counsel has accused the commissioner of fabrication, seeking excuses to ignore subjective evidence, parrotting the medical evidence, and being recalcitrant in the practice of relying heavily on medical evidence. Terwilliger's counsel has also referred to the substantial evidence review as a mere rubberstamp and in closing asserts that if we apply the long-established law of this state we will not provide meaningful judicial review and remedy. We understand the frustration of any counsel who feels that the client, despite herculean efforts by counsel, is not rewarded as hoped. However, counsel's pique does not justify an unbridled impugning of the integrity of the industrial commissioner's officers. AFFIRMED.