IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0922
Filed May 11, 2016
MCCOMAS-LACINA CONSTRUCTION and UNITED WISCONSIN
INSURANCE CO. d/b/a UNITED HEARTLAND,
Petitioners-Appellants,
vs.
STEPHEN DRAKE,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Kunkle Vaudt,
Judge.
Employer and insurance carrier appeal from the order affirming the
decision of the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner. AFFIRMED.
Nathan R. McConkey of Huber, Book, Lanz & McConkey, P.L.L.C., West
Des Moines, for appellants.
Thomas M. Wertz and Daniel J. Anderson of Wertz & Dake, P.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
McComas-Lacina Construction appeals from the district court’s ruling on
its petition for judicial review. The district court affirmed a workers’ compensation
award in favor of Stephen Drake. McComas-Lacina argues the agency’s
decision “that Mr. Drake was credible and entitled to substantial disability in
relation to his first two dates of injury and permanent total disability concerning
his last date of injury was an abuse of discretion, irrational, illogical,
unreasonable, unjustifiable, arbitrary and capricious, an error of law and not
supported by substantial evidence.”
On appeal, we apply the standards set forth in the Iowa Administrative
Procedure Act, Iowa Code chapter 17A (2013), to determine whether we reach
the same conclusions as the district court. “If we reach the same conclusions,
we affirm; otherwise we may reverse.” Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House, 843 N.W.2d
885, 889 (Iowa 2014).
The legislature has “vested the commissioner with the discretion to make
factual determinations.” Id. Our court is bound by these factual determinations
“if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when
the record is viewed as a whole.” Id. Substantial evidence is defined as “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). “Evidence is
not insubstantial merely because different conclusions may be drawn from the
evidence.” Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839, 845 (Iowa
3
2011) (citations omitted). Our court may consider evidence as substantial even if
we may have found a different conclusion than the fact finder. See id.
An industrial disability determination presents a mixed question of law and
fact. See Larson Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Thorson, 763 N.W.2d 842, 856 (Iowa 2009).
“The commissioner has a duty to state the evidence relied upon and detail the
reasons for any conclusions.” Myers v. F.C.A. Servs., Inc., 592 N.W.2d 354, 356
(Iowa 1999). “[W]e may reverse the Commissioner’s application of the law to the
facts only if it is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Lakeside Casino v.
Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169, 173 (Iowa 2007) (citation omitted).
We begin and end our analysis with the following observation: “The
administrative process presupposes judgment calls are to be left to the agency.
Nearly all disputes are won or lost there.” Sellers v. Emp’t Appeal Bd., 531
N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). A case reversing final
agency action on the ground the agency’s action is unsupported by substantial
evidence or is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable is the Bigfoot of the legal
community—an urban legend, rumored to exist but never confirmed. Here, the
employer had a full and fair opportunity to present its evidence and argument to
the deputy commissioner and the commissioner without success. The employer
challenged the agency’s findings, conclusions, and application of the facts to the
law in the district court without success. Like the district court, we have carefully
examined the grainy eight millimeter film of the administrative record. We can
add little to the thorough and well-reasoned ruling of the district court, and we will
not reiterate the same analysis here. We conclude the agency’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence, and its decision is not irrational, illogical,
4
unreasonable, unjustifiable, arbitrary and capricious, or legally erroneous. The
search for Bigfoot continues. The judgment of the district court is affirmed
without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (b), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.