Opinion ID: 2071547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Hearsay Objections.

Text: The first issue Scott raised on his appeal was that the district court improperly admitted and considered exhibits 10 and 13 that constituted hearsay. Exhibit 10 was a copy of clinical notes from a medical appointment Donna had with Dr. Joseph Chen at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. In exhibit 10 Dr. Chen stated that [Donna's] left knee replacement would be classified as a poor result with a 30% whole person impairment which equals a 75% lower extremity impairment. Exhibit 13 was a letter from Dr. John Callaghan to Donna's workers' compensation attorney. Dr. Callaghan wrote that [Donna's] permanent partial impairment is approximately 50% of the lower extremity and 25% of the entire body.... I would rate it at approximately 50% total body. Scott's counsel objected to both exhibits as hearsay. In its ruling, the district court relied on both exhibits in its findings concerning Donna's disability. Like the court of appeals, we find there is enough undisputed evidence apart from these two exhibits supporting Donna's claim that she is disabled. See Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590, 598 (Iowa 2001) (question of admissibility of evidence is not controlling if appellate court can, under its de novo review, arrive at same result with or without that evidence). Donna has had multiple surgeries on her knee and anticipates more surgery. One leg is shorter than the other because of the injury, she is in constant pain, and she hobbles. She cannot stand more than two to three hours at a time, and she cannot lift. She has been left with one kidney and has a problem with the other kidney. Her thyroid has been removed. Moreover, she receives social security disability payments because of her knee injury.