Court Opinion

ID: 9707838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:22:57.892756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.380979
License: Public Domain

SNELL, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Petitioner filed her three petitions for workers’ compensation in June 1988 asserting cumulative injury periods commencing in 1984. On April 12,1989, all three cases were consolidated by the industrial commissioner. The discovery process proceeded and interrogatories were propounded by defendants in all three cases. On April 25, 1990, Miller dismissed her case No. 878992 that had asserted claims against Hartford Insurance Company. Claims • remained, however, against Hartford, Employers Mutual Companies and Lauridsen Foods, Inc. in the remaining two consolidated eases. On the same date as the dismissal of case No. 878992, Miller filed a third amendment to the petitions in each of the remaining two cases. The deputy commissioner denied the pro*422posed amendments as being untimely, failing to clarify issues, and further confusing them.
On November 14, 1988, many months before dismissing case No. 878992 on April 25, 1990, Miller responded to an interrogatory from Hartford asking for a witness list. Interrogatory No. 17 asked:
Give the name and addresses of each and every person known to the claimant who has personal knowledge of the claimant’s present physical or mental complaints and whom the claimant expects to call as a witness at the time of trial. Names of doctors or other medical personnel are not sought in this interrogatory.
The answer given by Miller was: “No expectations at this time, other than likelihood of calling my husband.” Not listed were the names of three lay witnesses Miller sought to use at the hearing on March 13, 1991 on claims in the remaining two cases. These witnesses had been identified by Miller on February 25, 1991 for the first time. Then on March 5, 1991, Miller filed a motion to impose a sanction on Lauridsen Foods and their insurance carriers by excluding all of their witnesses. The reason given was a failure to seasonably supplement their interrogatory responses. Lauridsen and the insurance carriers filed resistances and on March 12, 1991, moved for a sanction excluding Miller’s witnesses for the same reason. The deputy commissioner excluded some witnesses proffered by each side.
Miller cites this sanction against her as being unreasonably hypertechnical. She argues that the consolidation came after her witness expectation interrogatory response and she had no duty to supplement that response on a case she later dismissed. The consolidation order was made on April 4, 1989; Miller dismissed case No. 878992 on April 25, 1990; the claims were heard on March 31, 1991. Moreover, Miller argues there was no duty of response owed to Employers Mutual when the interrogatory was propounded only by Hartford.
In reviewing this issue, the district court made this observation:
The difficulty with Joyce’s [Miller’s] position is that all three claims had been consolidated for trial and Lauridsen had the right to rely upon the answer to that interrogatory in preparing for the hearing. This was a discretionary ruling made by the deputy commissioner, and the exclusion of the witnesses does not constitute an abuse of discretion vested in him, especially in view of the fact that prior to the dismissal Joyce amended one of the remaining claims to include the injury date and injury which was pled in the case which was dismissed. It should be pointed out that the deputy commissioner also excluded the testimony of certain witnesses whom the respondents wish to call even though those witnesses had been named on the answers to Joyce’s interrogatories.
In its review, the court of appeals said:
Appellant first argues the district court erred in affirming the commissioner’s exclusion of evidence. The commissioner excluded evidence on several bases. First, the commissioner granted Employers’ motion for discovery sanctions based on appellant’s failure to supplement answers to interrogatories in a related claim which was consolidated with the two claims before the agency, but later dismissed. The dismissed claim initially listed Employers as the insurance carrier but later was amended to substitute Hartford. Because of the close interrelationship of the claims, issues, and parties, we conclude it was reasonable and not arbitrary for the commissioner to grant the discovery sanctions, excluding testimony of certain witnesses.
Miller further argues that our rule on consolidation, Iowa R.Civ.P. 185, was modeled after federal rule 42 and should therefore follow its interpretation. Cited for this is the statement:
Consolidation under rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ. P., is a procedural device designed to promote judicial economy, and consolidation cannot effect a merger of the actions or the defenses of the separate parties. It does not change the rights of the parties in separate suits. Rights are unaffected even though a consolidated complaint is filed.
Cole v. Schenley Indus. Inc., 563 F.2d 35, 38 (2d Cir.1977) (citations omitted); Johnson v. Manhattan Ry., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97, 53 *423S.Ct. 721, 727-28, 77 L.Ed. 1331, 1344-45 (1933).
Miller’s argument for adoption of a federal circuit court’s view of the effect of consolidating cases misdirects the legal issue involved. After the three cases were consolidated, Miller had an obligation to supplement her answers to interrogatory No. 17, the same as before consolidation. Her voluntary dismissal of case No. 878992 did not erase that duty, wiping the slate clean, so that the same claim could reappear, unfettered, as a part of the remaining two cases. Yet, this is exactly what transpired, whether by accident or design. To accept Miller’s premise that this is a consolidation issue wherein her rights were destroyed transfigures the entire scenario. Miller would acquire rights she did not have before she dismissed case No. 878992 and was not entitled to after dismissal.
The deputy commissioner was exercising a discretionary judgment in excluding the proffered witnesses. This is not a question of the rights of the parties. Consolidation would accomplish little and would hobble the agency’s ability to expedite these hearings if it operated as Miller suggests. Miller’s argument ignores the fact that in all three cases the actual party defendant is Lauridsen Foods, the employer. The actions are against the employer. The insurance carriers are parties only by reason of the issuance of a policy of insurance. Iowa Code § 85.3(1) (1993); 343 Iowa Admin.Code 4.10 (1986).
My review shows that the court of appeals and the district court carefully considered this issue and correctly affirmed the exercise of discretion by the deputy industrial commissioner as the law was applied to the factual situation surrounding the consolidation of these cases.
Miller mounts a vigorous argument that the exclusion of the three lay witnesses tipped the balance against her and was wrong in law and reason. She claims that improper deference to medical testimony over lay witness evidence is shown. The decision of the deputy commissioner shows that the lay testimony of Miller’s husband was considered. However, the evidence of Miller’s incapacities, both physically and psychologically, was presented by trained professionals not just abundantly but overwhelmingly. Additional lay evidence would have provided little or no help to the deputy commissioner. This is because the deciding issue was not what activities she could or could not do but rather what caused her disability and what was the nexus to her employment.
The deputy commissioner specifically named and analyzed the testimony and written statements of numerous witnesses submitted in evidence. These included David Boarini, M.D., a neurologist, Todd F. Hines, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, Thomas F. De-Bartolo, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, Stephen M. Bolton, M.D., Dr. Ronald S. Bergman, T.S. Mead, M.D., Alfredo D. Socarras, M.D., R.B. Trimble, M.D., Dr. Bottjen, R. Larson, M.D., and M. Pelton, M.D.
Extensive testimony and supporting documents show that physical as well as psychological examinations were given Miller on many occasions. The deputy commissioner analyzed and quoted from them and described the evidence presented by the witnesses in a fifteen-page statement of facts.
Miller presented considerable detail to support her claims. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence in the record to uphold the industrial commissioner’s decision. See Sondag v. Ferris Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903, 905 (Iowa 1974). Essentially, Miller argues that the review standard in these cases is unfair and that we should engage in a de novo review. That suggestion is for the legislature’s evaluation. Our limited review has b@en long established by statute and our cases. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(8); Dillinger v. City of Sioux City, 368 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 1985).
This case has been considered by the deputy industrial commissioner who filed a twenty-page opinion and by the industrial commissioner who filed a six-page opinion. These decisions were reviewed and affirmed by the district court in a sixteen-page opinion. This review was affirmed by the court of appeals’ eleven-page opinion. While I do not suggest that a decision is necessarily correct because an opinion is lengthy, I do find that in the six years of its litigation this *424case has been thoroughly considered and reviewed. I recognize that the petitioner marshaled considerable evidence to support her claims, but as in most cases countering evidence was presented.
In Musselman we said:
Sections 86.29 and 86.30, Code 1962, have been repeatedly construed as making the commissioner’s findings of fact conclusive on appeal where the evidence is in dispute or reasonable minds may differ on the inferences fairly drawn from the disclosed facts. If the evidence presents a question which should be submitted to a jury, if trial were to a jury, then the courts are bound by the commissioner’s findings.
Musselman v. Central Tel. Co., 261 Iowa 352, 154 N.W.2d 128, 130 (1967). We confirmed this interpretation of our law in Kostelac v. Feldman’s, Inc., 497 N.W.2d 853 (Iowa 1993).
The decision of the court of appeals and the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS and LARSON, JJ., join this dissent.