IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1095 Filed July 27, 2016
JULIE ANN REYNOLDS, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
vs.
ALGONA MANOR CARE CENTER and CANON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble,
Judge.
An employer appeals and an employee cross-appeals the district court’s
ruling on judicial review of a workers’ compensation award. AFFIRMED IN
PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Joni L. Ploeger and Stephen J Brown of Cutler Law Firm, P.C., West Des
Moines, for appellants.
Mark S. Soldat of Soldat, Parrish-Sams & Gustafson, PLC, West Des
Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
DOYLE, Judge.
An employer and its workers’ compensation administrator appeal from the
district court’s ruling on judicial review of a workers’ compensation award with
respect to the award of certain medical expenses, the interest due on temporary
benefits, and the award of penalty benefits and costs. On cross-appeal, the
claimant argues her spouse is entitled to reimbursement for wages lost while
transporting the claimant to medical appointments. Upon our review, we reverse
the portion of the judicial review ruling affirming the commissioner’s denial of
reimbursement for wages lost by the employee’s spouse while transporting the
employee to medical appointments, and we remand to the workers’
compensation commissioner for a determination of how much interest—if any—
should be assessed against the employer for any nonpayment of temporary
benefits. We affirm in all other respects.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Julie Reynolds was employed by Algona Manor Care Center (Algona
Manor) when she suffered a work injury on September 1, 2011. Reynolds filed a
petition with the workers’ compensation commissioner seeking compensation for
her injury. Both Reynolds and Algona Manor1 stipulated that Reynolds had not
reached maximum medical improvement and that the issue of permanent partial
disability was not ripe for hearing.
An arbitration hearing was held to determine Reynolds’s workers’
compensation rate, her entitlement to reimbursement for disputed medical
1 Canon Cochran Management Services, Inc. provided third-party workers’ compensation administration to Algona Manor during the relevant time period and is a party to these proceedings. In the interest of brevity, we will refer only to Algona Manor. 3
expenses, interest on any past-due benefits, penalty benefits, and costs. The
deputy workers’ compensation commissioner determined that Reynolds’s weekly
compensation rate was $635.05 and ordered Algona Manor to pay all past-due
weekly benefits in a lump sum with interest. Algona Manor was also ordered to
compensate Reynolds for certain expenses she incurred to treat her injury, as
well as the cost of medical treatment for an allergic reaction Reynolds had to
medication prescribed to treat her injury. The deputy commissioner denied
Reynolds’s claim to reimburse her husband for wages he lost while driving her to
medical appointments. Finally, Algona Manor was assessed a $2500 penalty for
delayed payment of benefits and was ordered to reimburse Reynolds costs in the
amount of $113.60. The deputy commissioner denied both parties’ applications
for rehearing, and the industrial commissioner affirmed the deputy commissioner
on appeal.
Both parties sought judicial review of the agency action. After a hearing,
the district court entered an order affirming the commissioner’s decision
regarding reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses and travel
expenses, as well as his assessment of penalty benefits and costs. The court
agreed with Algona Manor that the commissioner had made a mathematical error
in calculating Reynolds’s weekly benefit, finding the correct calculation was
$633.30. Because Algona Manor had paid Reynolds this amount of weekly
benefits, the court determined no interest was due for underpayment and
remanded the case back to the agency to determine the credit and interest
computation for any late or missing weekly benefit payments. 4
The district court denied Reynolds’s motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.904(2), which sought enlarged, amended, modified, or substituted
findings. Thereafter, both parties filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review of final agency action is governed by Iowa Code chapter 17A
(2013). See Des Moines Area Reg’l Transit Auth. v. Young, 867 N.W.2d 839,
841-42 (Iowa 2015). We apply the standards set forth in section 17A.19(10) to
the commissioner’s decision and decide whether the district court correctly
applied the law in exercising its judicial review function. See id. at 842. If we
reach the same conclusions as the district court, we affirm. See id. If not, we
reverse. See id.
We review the commissioner’s interpretation of workers’ compensation
statutes for the correction of errors at law. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(c)
(stating the court should grant relief where the agency decision is “[b]ased upon
an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law whose interpretation has not
been clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency”);
Ramirez-Trujillo v. Quality Egg, L.L.C., 878 N.W.2d 759, 773 (Iowa 2016)
(holding the legislature did not expressly vest the workers’ compensation
commissioner with authority to interpret the workers’ compensation statutes in
chapter 85). In so doing, we will substitute our own judgment for the
commissioner’s interpretation of chapter 85 should we conclude the
commissioner’s interpretation rests on an error at law. See Ramirez-Trujillo, 878
N.W.2d at 771. 5
Because factual determinations are clearly vested in the discretion of the
workers’ compensation commissioner, we defer to the commissioner’s findings if
they are based on “substantial evidence in the record before the court when that
record is viewed as a whole.” Larson Mfg. Co. v. Thorson, 763 N.W.2d 842, 850
(Iowa 2009) (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)). Substantial evidence is “the
quantity and quality of evidence that would be deemed sufficient by a neutral,
detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue when the
consequences resulting from the establishment of that fact are understood to be
serious and of great importance.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(1). Rather than
questioning whether the evidence before us may support a different finding than
that made by the commissioner, we ask whether the evidence supports the
finding actually made. See Larson Mfg. Co., 763 N.W.2d at 850.
III. Discussion.
Algona Care advances four arguments on appeal. It challenges the
reimbursement of Reynolds’s medical costs and expenses, the remand to the
agency to determine interest on temporary benefits, the award of penalty
benefits, and the award of costs. On cross-appeal, Reynolds challenges only the
denial of reimbursement of her husband’s wages, which she argues is a
transportation expense. We address each argument in turn.
A. Medical Expenses.
Algona Manor contends the district court erred in concluding Reynolds
was entitled to reimbursement for certain medical expenses. Specifically, Algona
Manor argues Reynolds should not be reimbursed for prescription medication
obtained on November 4, 2011, as well as non-prescription items purchased on 6
February 13, 2012, claiming these purchases were unrelated to her work injury.
It also argues Reynolds is not entitled to reimbursement for a November 12,
2012 medical appointment, which Algona Manor claims was unauthorized and
unrelated to her work injury.
1. Trazodone prescription.
Algona Manor’s first claim relates to medication prescribed to Reynolds
during an authorized medical appointment with Dr. Burt Bottjen on November 4,
2011. At that appointment, Reynolds complained she was having difficulty
sleeping due to pain in her neck and shoulders. Dr. Bottjen prescribed Reynolds
Trazodone “to help with depression and sleep.” Algona Manor argues Dr. Bottjen
was only authorized to treat Reynolds for a work injury to her neck and shoulder,
to which the insomnia and depression were unrelated.
Substantial evidence supports the award of $10 for the Trazodone
prescription. At the arbitration hearing, Reynolds testified she been experiencing
difficulty sleeping when she attended her November 4, 2011 appointment with
Dr. Bottjen, stating: “I was just unable to get comfortable. I mean, you get up
during the night, sit in the recliner, you try to lay in bed. My favorite side to sleep
on is my left side. I still cannot lay on my back or my left side.” She testified she
did not have “problems of this nature” with sleeping before the work injury.
Dr. Bottjen’s notes from the November 4, 2011 appointment confirm Reynolds’s
testimony. He described that Reynolds “has not been sleeping well because of
her pain in her shoulders and neck from her dis[c] disease. . . . Last night she
took two 10 mg of Ambien, two 10/500 Lortabs and two diazepam to help her
sleep. Problem seems to be escalating here.” Dr. Bottjen assessed Reynolds 7
with “[c]ervical dis[c] disease with significant insomnia and depression associated
with this.” This evidence supports a finding that Reynolds’s sleep difficulties and
the resulting prescription for Trazodone are related to her September 1, 2011
work injury.
Because we agree with the district court that substantial evidence
supports the commissioner’s finding that the Trazodone prescription was causally
related to Reynolds’s work injury, we affirm the reimbursement of the cost of the
prescription.
2. Biofreeze and heating oil.
Algona Manor also argues the purchase of certain non-prescription items
was unauthorized and therefore should not be reimbursed. On February 13,
2012, Reynolds purchased “roll-on Biofreeze and soothing heat blended oil” upon
the recommendation of her treating physicians to treat her vocal cord
dysfunction. Because there is no written prescription or recommendation in
Reynolds’s medical records, Algona Manor argues there is no evidence to
support the award of these costs.
Reynolds testified that when she saw Dr. Beck regarding pain in her
throat, “[h]e thought . . . for the shoulder the Biofreeze or the roll-on creams might
at least help topically.” When she purchased the Biofreeze, she also purchased
the “blending oil,” which she testified “at least two doctors” had recommended
she try with the Biofreeze. Algona Manor argues the deputy commissioner found
Reynolds’s testimony not credible. However, the deputy commissioner limited its
finding she lacked credibility to two instances of testimony: her testimony
regarding the existence of a causal connection between her urinary tract infection 8
and her work injury, and a self-diagnosis of pneumonia that conflicted with her
physician’s diagnosis of bronchitis. With regard to the bulk of Reynolds’s
testimony, the deputy commissioner was silent with regard to credibility. We can
infer from the award of costs for the Biofreeze and blending oil that the deputy
commissioner found Reynolds’s testimony on this issue to be credible.
Additionally, Reynolds’s testimony that her physicians recommended the
items is supported by the record. Reynolds testified she purchased the items on
the same day as her appointments with Drs. Lee and Beck from Mercy Home
Therapy Shop. The medical records for the appointment with Dr. Lee that day
show Reynolds’s vital signs were entered at 9:29 a.m. The receipt from Mercy
Home Therapy Shop, which Reynolds testified is “a couple blocks away” from
Dr. Beck’s office, shows the items were purchased on the same day at
11:38 a.m.
Substantial evidence supports awarding Reynolds $22.36 for the cost of
the Biofreeze and blending oil. Because we reach the same conclusion as the
district court, we affirm the award of these non-prescription costs.
3. November 12, 2012 medical appointment.
Finally, Algona Manor argues Reynolds should not be reimbursed for a
November 12, 2012 medical appointment with Dr. Rachel Venteicher because
the visit was unauthorized and unrelated to her work injury.
The events leading up to the November 12 appointment are relevant to
the determination of whether the appointment was related to the work injury and
require recitation here. On November 2, 2012, Reynolds saw Dr. Michael Lampe
at an authorized appointment for her work injury, where Reynolds complained 9
she was not feeling well, with “increased left shoulder and neck discomfort.”
Dr. Lampe assessed Reynolds with chronic pain, anxiety, and depression. He
prescribed Wellbutrin. Thereafter, Reynolds developed a rash and swelling in
her face. On November 12, 2012, she sought medical attention from
Dr. Venteicher, who determined the symptoms were related to her use of
Wellbutrin. In the medical notes from that appointment, Dr. Venteicher assessed
Reynolds as having depression and anxiety, and she encouraged Reynolds to try
“something different” than Wellbutrin, opining: “I think that it really would help
how she is coping with her chronic pain issues.” To that end, Dr. Venteicher
prescribed Zoloft.
Substantial record evidence supports the award of $132 for the November
12, 2012 medical appointment. Reynolds had been prescribed Wellbutrin as a
result of her work injury. Her reaction to the Wellbutrin necessitated the office
visit on November 12, 2012. But for the work injury, Reynolds would not have
had the allergic reaction to Wellbutrin. We agree with the district court’s
assessment that substantial evidence supports the award of costs and expenses,
and accordingly, we affirm on this issue.
B. Interest on Temporary Benefits.
Algona Manor next contends the district court erred in remanding the case
back to the agency to determine interest on temporary benefits. It argues no
interest should have been awarded on temporary benefits because all of
Reynolds’s temporary benefits—and the interest on those benefits—have already
been paid. The district court concluded each payment by Algona Manor was at
the correct weekly rate, and therefore, no interest was due for an underpayment. 10
But, the court noted the commissioner found that ten weekly payments were
either late or missing. Under section 85.30, Algona Manor is liable for interest for
any payment that was made late or that was less than the full amount of
compensation owed. See Iowa Code § 85.30. Algona Manor acknowledges
“[b]enefits may have been delayed on a few occasions,” but it paid some
benefits, with interest, at a rate higher than awarded by the district court. The
district court noted the commissioner failed to make a finding as to what extent
Reynolds was entitled to interest on any late payments. We note that the district
court did not require Algona Manor to pay interest. It only remanded for a
determination of whether interest is owed on any late or missing weekly benefit
payments. Under the facts presented, we find the remand appropriate. See
Robbennolt v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 555 N.W.2d 229, 236 (Iowa 1996)
(remanding the interest determination to the commissioner). We affirm on this
issue.
C. Penalty Benefits.
Algona Manor also contends the district court erred in affirming the
commissioner’s award of $2500 in penalty benefits to Reynolds. It argues the
commissioner erroneously determined Reynolds’s benefits came due on
September 13, 2011 and, therefore, erroneously calculated the due dates from
that date forward. Using that calculation, the commissioner determined Algona
Manor failed to timely pay benefits on ten dates. However, in Algona Manor’s
view, weekly benefits did not come due until eleven days after Reynolds’s
benefits were to commence. Because Reynolds did not miss work until
September 6, 2011—five days after her work injury occurred—it argues her 11
penalty benefits did not come due until September 17, 2011. Adjusting the due
dates that follow accordingly, Algona Manor argues there was no delay in
payment. It also argues Reynolds’s weekly benefits were not due until eleven
days after the benefits were to commence.
Iowa Code section 85.30 provides:
Compensation payments shall be made each week beginning on the eleventh day after the injury, and each week thereafter during the period for which compensation is payable, and if not paid when due, there shall be added to the weekly compensation payments, interest at the rate provided in section 535.3 [2] for court judgments and decrees.
(Emphasis added.) In other words, section 85.30 allows employers “an eleven-
day grace period following the injury to allow an evaluation and investigation of
the injury and a determination of the correct weekly compensation rate before the
first compensation payment is due.” Robbennolt, 555 N.W.2d at 235 (emphasis
added). Algona Manor’s claim that weekly compensation was not due until
eleven days after benefits were to commence is not supported by the law.
In the alternative, Algona Manor argues it had a reasonable cause or
excuse for its alleged delay in payment of benefits. It claims the benefits were
delayed because it was trying to determine if Reynolds’s physical complaints
were related to her work injury. It further claims any short delay in the receipt of
benefits was remedied within a reasonable amount of time. It further notes it
paid benefits at a higher rate than determined by the district court, along with
interest, which shows it was acting in good faith.
2 Iowa Code section 535.3 provides that interest due under section 85.30 shall be at a rate of ten percent per year. 12
Penalty benefits shall be assessed against an employer that denies,
delays, or terminates workers’ compensation benefits “without reasonable or
probable cause or excuse.” Iowa Code § 86.13(4)(a). The commissioner shall
award “up to fifty percent of the amount of benefits that were denied, delayed, or
terminated without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.” Id. To award
penalty benefits, the commissioner must find that the employee “demonstrated a
denial, delay in payment, or termination of benefits” and that the employer “failed
to prove a reasonable or probable cause or excuse for the denial, delay in
payment, or termination of benefits.” Id. § 86.13(4)(b). An exception for
reasonable cause, probable cause, or excuse exists if:
(1) The excuse was preceded by a reasonable investigation and evaluation by the employer or insurance carrier into whether benefits were owed to the employee. (2) The results of the reasonable investigation and evaluation were the actual basis upon which the employer or insurance carrier contemporaneously relied to deny, delay payment of, or terminate benefits. (3) The employer or insurance carrier contemporaneously conveyed the basis for the denial, delay in payment, or termination of benefits to the employee at the time of the denial, delay, or termination of benefits.
Id. § 86.13(4)(c). There is no evidence Algona Manor conveyed to Reynolds the
basis for the delayed payments. Accordingly, the delay in payment does not
meet the criteria of section 86.13(4)(c)(3) and cannot qualify as “reasonable or
probable cause or excuse.” We therefore affirm the award of penalty benefits.
D. Costs.
Finally, Algona Manor claims the district court erred in affirming the
commissioner’s award of $113.60 in costs to Reynolds. We review the
assessment of costs at the agency level and on judicial review for an abuse of 13
discretion. See id. § 86.40; see also Robbennolt, 555 N.W.2d at 238. In
determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred, we consider the relative
success of the parties on the issues raised. See Robbennolt, 555 N.W.2d at
238.
The commissioner determined it was appropriate to assess the costs of
the action to Algona Care because Reynolds had prevailed “on the majority of
the issues.” Algona Manor disputes this finding. The record shows that the
commissioner’s decision was a mixed result, with both parties winning some and
losing some issues. Although a different conclusion could have been reached,
we do not find an abuse of discretion in awarding Reynolds costs, and we affirm
on this issue.
E. Travel Expenses.
On cross-appeal, Reynolds contends the court erred by affirming the
commissioner’s denial of spousal wages as a transportation expense.3
Specifically, she claims the following lost wages should be ordered reimbursed:
Dates Providers Round-trip Wage Hours of Service Mileage @ $15.38/hour 10/03/11 Spencer Hospital 102.82 8 $123.04 11/21/11 Dr. Beck 107.66 6.5 $ 99.97 12/01/11- Mercy Medical 12/02/11 Center – North Iowa 107.66 16 $246.08 12/21/11 Dr. Beck 107.66 5 $ 76.90 1/11/12 Dr. Beck 107.66 8 $123.04 2/13/12 Dr. Lee 107.66 10 $153.80 10/11/12 Dr. Hoffman 484.00 8 $123.04 12/12/12 Dr. Kuhnlein 253.00 8 $123.04 1/11/13 Dr. Peterson 107.66 8 $123.04 77.5 hrs $1191.95
3 This issue arose because the uncontroverted evidence established that, due to her medical condition, Reynolds was unable to drive herself to out-of-town medical appointments. 14
She challenges both the law on reimbursement for such expenses as decided by
our supreme court and the application of the law to the facts of her case.
Our workers’ compensation statute provides that an employer shall
“furnish reasonable surgical, medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic, podiatric,
physical rehabilitation, nursing, ambulance and hospital services and supplies
therefor and shall allow reasonably necessary transportation expenses incurred
for such services.” Iowa Code § 85.27(1) (emphasis added). In Mycogen Seeds
v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 469 (Iowa 2004), our supreme court determined “that
under section 85.27, an employee may be reimbursed for wages lost by the
employee’s spouse because of the spouse’s absence from work when providing
the employee with transportation to obtain authorized medical treatment”
provided the transportation is “reasonably necessary.” A spouse’s lost wages
are reimbursable in such situations “only if the manner of travel was the most
economical reasonable way to be transported, the amount was reasonable as to
the quality and quantity of services rendered, and the wages were actually lost by
the person providing the transportation.” Mycogen Seeds, 686 N.W.2d at 468-69
(quoting with approval Mills v. Walden-Sparkman, Inc., 493 So. 2d 64, 66 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1986)).
Reynolds first argues that to recover a spouse’s lost wages for travel,
section 85.27(1) only requires a showing that it was reasonably necessary for the
spouse to provide transportation to the medical appointment, and Mycogen
Seeds erroneously requires more. We decline the invitation to overturn supreme
court precedent. See State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 584 n.1 (Iowa 2014)
(“Generally, it is the role of the supreme court to decide if case precedent should 15
no longer be followed.”); State v. Eichler, 83 N.W.2d 576, 578 (Iowa 1957) (“If our
previous holdings are to be overruled, we should ordinarily prefer to do it
ourselves.”); State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We
are not at liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”).
In the alternative, Reynolds argues that she met the Mycogen Seeds test
by demonstrating that transportation to her medical appointments by her
husband was both reasonably necessary and the most economical option. Her
claim hinges on Algona Manor’s stipulation that her husband was entitled to be
reimbursed for sixteen hours of lost wages for work he missed on December 1-2,
2012, to transport Reynolds from her home in Algona to Mason City for back
surgery. She claims this stipulation functions as a concession that this mode of
transportation was both reasonably necessary and the most economical option
for transportation, thereby satisfying both prongs of the test articulated in
Mycogen Seeds. Taking this logic a step further, she expands her argument to
claim the stipulation is therefore a concession that her husband driving her would
be the most economical way to transport her to appointments similar or longer in
distance than the appointment in Mason City (a distance of 107.66 miles
roundtrip). This would include medical appointments in Spencer (102.82 miles
roundtrip), Ankeny (253 miles roundtrip), and Iowa City (484 miles roundtrip).
“A stipulation of fact relieves a party from the inconvenience of proving the
facts in the stipulation.” Iowa Mortgage Ctr., L.L.C. v. Baccam, 841 N.W.2d 107,
111 (Iowa 2013). We attempt to determine and give effect to the parties’
intentions in construing such stipulations. See id. “We interpret the stipulation
‘with reference to its subject matter and in light of the surrounding circumstances 16
and the whole record, including the state of the pleadings and issues involved.’”
Id. (citation omitted).
Here, the parties submitted an itemized list of the medical expenses for
which Reynolds sought to be reimbursed. Algona Manor marked any items it
disputed on the list. If no notation was made next to an item, the payment of
such medical expense was stipulated. No notation is made next to the category
of “Spouse Driver’s Lost Wage Hours” for December 1-2, 2012. Every other item
listed in that category, however, is clearly marked as disputed. It would be
unreasonable to make the leap in the logic Reynolds advocates to conclude that
by stipulating to one of the costs in that category, Algona Manor was also
conceding to the reasonableness of the other costs claimed in that category in
spite of its clear indication to the contrary. Even assuming the stipulation was a
concession that her husband driving her to Mason City on the dates in question
was reasonable and the most economic means of transportation, there is no
sound logic for imputing that same finding to all trips of equal or greater distance.
It is not difficult to imagine scenarios in which one method of transportation is the
most economical option for one journey but not for a similar journey of equal or
greater distance. For instance, bus service may be unavailable between two
cities due to their size or the dates and times at which travel is undertaken, while
bus service may be readily available for a trip twice that distance because the trip
involves a more populous city or more convenient travel times.
Finally, Reynolds argues the commissioner erred in his application of the
procedure set forth in Mycogen Seeds. Under this procedure, 17
[t]he claimant has to prove the “mode of transportation taken was reasonable and economical under the circumstances, taking into consideration the medical condition of the claimant.” Additionally, the claimant must produce evidence regarding the cost of the chosen manner of travel compared to the cost of “other reasonably available means of transportation.” At this point, the burden shifts to “the employer and carrier to supply evidence that a more reasonable and economical transportation method exists, of which claimant could have been aware, but chose not to take advantage of.” The commissioner then weighs the evidence presented and determines how much the claimant should be reimbursed.
686 N.W.2d at 468 (citations omitted).
The commissioner found Reynolds had satisfied the burden of proving it
was reasonable to have her husband transport her to her medical appointments.
However, because she failed to present evidence as to the cost of other means
of transportation, the commissioner held Reynolds failed to prove the cost of her
husband driving her—compared to the cost of other reasonably available means
of transportation—was the most economically-reasonable option. Therefore, the
burden never shifted to Algona Manor to show a more economically-reasonable
mode of transportation was available.
Reynolds claims that she could not introduce evidence concerning the
cost of other means of transportation because there were no other means of
transportation available to her. At the arbitration hearing, Reynolds testified
about the availability of other forms of transportation:
Q. Is there any bus service to Mason City from Algona? A. At times there’s a transit bus, but you’re like on it all day. Q. How about to Spencer? A. I know [of] nothing that goes to Spencer. Q. How about from Algona to Iowa City? A. I know of nothing.
Her husband testified similarly: 18
Q. Do you know of any other reasonable economic way of transportation that was available in the Algona area transporting your wife to Spencer, Mason City, Iowa City, and Ankeny? A. The only other way I’m aware of is we do have a local taxi that you can pay to have them take that far, but I’m not even sure they allow that to go that far.
Reynolds argues that she presented evidence that no other reasonable means of
transportation existed; therefore, the burden shifted to Algona Manor to provide
evidence of a more economical means, which Algona Manor failed to do.
We agree the commissioner misapplied the holding of Mycogen Seeds to
the facts of Reynolds’s case. Reynolds and her husband testified, in essence,
that although there may have been other means of transportation available, there
was no other reasonable means of transportation between her home in Algona
and her medical appointments in Spencer, Iowa City, and Ankeny. Accordingly,
there could be no reasonable transportation that was also more economical than
her husband driving her to these appointments. The burden then shifted to
Algona Manor to show a more reasonable and economical transportation method
existed, of which Reynolds could have been aware but chose not to use. Algona
Manor failed to make such a showing. Therefore, we reverse the district court on
this issue.
IV. Conclusion.
We affirm the district court’s ruling on judicial review with regard to
Reynolds’s medical expenses, the interest on her temporary benefits, the
availability of penalty benefits, and the award of costs. We reverse the district
court’s ruling affirming the commissioner’s denial of her claim for travel
expenses. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court to enter 19
judgment consistent with this opinion and to then remand the matter to the
agency for entry of a decision consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.