West Central Cooperative and Farmland Mutual Insurance Company
v.
Brett V. Sullivan
Appellant
West Central Cooperative and Farmland Mutual Insurance Company
Appellee
Brett V. Sullivan
Attorney for the Appellant
Jeffrey W. Lanz
Attorney for the Appellee
Thomas M. Wertz and Mindi M. Vervaecke
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (20 pages)
Brett Sullivan, who was injured in a workplace accident in 2011, sought authorization from West Central Cooperative and Farmland Mutual Insurance Company for a trial of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) to treat chronic back pain. The employer denied liability, arguing Sullivan’s chronic back pain was not causally related to the 2011 accident and, alternatively, that the SCS trial was not a reasonable and necessary treatment for the pain. The commissioner concluded the back pain was causally related and the SCS trial was reasonable and necessary. On rehearing, the commissioner concluded that Sullivan proved the treatment offered by the employer was unreasonable. The district court affirmed. Here on appeal, the employer argues there is not substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s ruling that Sullivan’s chronic back pain is causally related to his 2011 work injury or that the SCS trial is reasonable and necessary treatment for the back pain. The employer also challenges whether the commissioner’s determination that the treatment being provided by the employer was unreasonable constitutes an abuse of discretion or an error at law. OPINION HOLDS: Because the employer denied liability for Sullivan’s back pain, this case was not heard in an alternate-medical-care proceeding, and the employer does not get the benefit of the deference it would have been afforded if it was. Insofar as the commissioner and district court concluded Sullivan had to prove that any treatment offered by the employer was unreasonable, the ruling was in error. However, because we agree with the district court that the commissioner’s rulings Sullivan’s chronic back pain is causally related to the 2011 workplace accident and that the SCS trial is reasonable and necessary treatment are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.