Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris Steel Group, Inc. v. Botkin

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 9, 2020

HARRIS STEEL GROUP, INC. and AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
JUSTIN BOTKIN, Respondent-Appellee.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.

         An employer appeals following judicial review of a worker's compensation decision granting an application for alternate medical care.

          D. Brian Scieszinksi of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.

          Thomas J. Currie of Currie & Liabo Law Firm, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

          Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.

          DOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         An employer[1] appeals following judicial review of an agency decision granting an injured worker's application for alternate medical care. It contends the agency erred in granting the application because the worker refused to attend an independent medical examination to determine whether the requested treatment related to a compensable injury. Under the facts before us, we conclude that the agency properly granted Botkin's petition for alternate care.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

         Justin Botkin was employed by Harris Steel Group, Inc. (Harris) when he injured his right shoulder at work in June 2015. Harris authorized Botkin to receive treatment from Dr. Tuvi Mendel, who performed surgery on Botkin's shoulder in November 2015. When Botkin returned for a follow-up appointment one year after surgery, he complained that his pain had increased slightly.

         Because Botkin continued to have trouble with his right shoulder, he tried to schedule an appointment with Dr. Mendel late in 2017. Dr. Mendel told Botkin to get Harris's authorization for treatment because more than two years had passed since his injury. Harris scheduled Botkin for an independent medical examination to take place in December 2017, but Botkin refused to go. In turn, Harris failed to respond to Botkin's written requests to authorize additional treatment with Dr. Mendel.

         In April 2018, Botkin submitted a claim for alternate medical care to the workers' compensation commissioner. The agency found that Dr. Mendel is the only medical provider that Harris authorized to treat Botkin and thus Harris is not allowed to interfere with Dr. Mendel's treatment practices. It also determined that Botkin's request for continued treatment with Dr. Mendel is reasonable and ordered Harris to authorize continued treatment. Harris applied for rehearing, arguing that denial of the alternate medical care was warranted based on Botkin's refusal to submit to an independent medical examination. The agency denied the application. Harris raised the same argument in a petition for judicial review, which the district court denied.

         II. Scope and Standard of Review.

         We review the district court's ruling on judicial review under the standards in the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. See Bell Bros. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Gwinn, 779 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Iowa 2010). Our review is limited to determining whether the district court correctly applied the law in exercising its review under Iowa Code section 17A.19(8) (2015). See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192, 195 (Iowa 2007). If we reach the same conclusions as the district court, we affirm; if not, we reverse or modify. See id.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.