1803, 1803.1 Filed October 23, 1989 DAVID RASEY BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER JAN MOODY, Claimant, vs. File No. 773474 VERNON BASCOM COMPANY, A R B I T R A T I 0 N Employer, D E C I S I 0 N and THE TRAVELERS, Insurance Carrier, Defendants. 1803.1 Injury to two scheduled members in one incident was compensated functionally, not industrially, as a combined percentage of 500 weeks. Electrical injury to arms and hands bilaterally was to two scheduled members and not body as a whole. Even though current obviously passed through claimant's torso, the only observable functional loss was to upper extremities. 1803 Where physician began with body as a whole impairment rating and then, working backwards, converted that to two upper extremity ratings, deputy began with those extremity ratings and converted to combined body as a whole rating by use of the AMA Guides. The result was one percentage point different from the physician's body as a whole rating, which did not correspond with the Guides' combined values table. BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER ROGER SCRIVEN, Claimant, VS. File No. 736203 WILSON FOODS CORPORATION, Employer, Self-Insured, Defendant. _______________________________ ROGER L. SCRIVEN, Claimant, VS. File No. 773539 CEDAR RAPIDS MEATS, A P P E A L Employer, R U L I N G and SENTRY INSURANCE Insurance Carrier, Defendant. _______________________________ ROGER L. SCRIVEN, Claimant, VS. FARMSTEAD FOODS, File No. 814542 Employer, and SENTRY INSURANCE, Insurance Carrier, Defendants. SCRIVEN V. WILSON FOODS CORP/CEDAR RAPIDS MEATS/FARMSTEAD FOODS Page 2 Rule 500-4.27 states in part: "No appeal shall be separately taken under this or 4.25 (17A, 86) from an interlocutory decision, order or ruling of a deputy industrial commissioner. A decision, order or ruling is interlocutory if it does not dispose of the contested case." The ruling filed June 2, 1987 which is the subject matter of this appeal is not dispositive of the contested case and therefore interlocutory. THEREFORE, the appeal filed July 16, 1987 is hereby dismissed. Signed and filed this 28th day of July, 1987. DAVID E. LINQUIST ACTING INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER Copies To: Mr. Thomas B. Read Attorney at Law 1710 IE Tower Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 Mr. Harry W. Dahl Attorney at Law 974 73rd St., Suite 16 Des Moines, Iowa 50312 Mr. John M. Bickel Attorney at Law 500 MNB Bldg. P.O. Box 2107 Cedar Rapid, Iowa 52406 2209 Filed December 20, 1991 BYRON K. ORTON DAD before the iowa industrial commissioner ____________________________________________________________ : TED SCHEUERMANN, : : Claimant, : File Nos. 773553/872707 : 872708 vs. : : A P P E A L OSCAR MAYER FOODS : CORPORATION, : D E C I S I O N : Employer, : Self-Insured, : Defendant. : ___________________________________________________________ Affirmed deputy's denial of benefits, but clarified that claimant failed to establish entitlement to benefits because he had not carried his burden to show that his present condition was causally connected to the work injury, not because he had not suffered a cumulative injury. A holding by the deputy that claimant had not suffered a cumulative injury because he was never compelled to leave work due to pain was clarified. Under McKeever, leaving work due to pain is a method of establishing the date of injury for a cumulative injury. Other agency precedents establish that where claimant suffers a cumulative injury but does not leave work due to the pain, other factors can be used to determine the date of injury. Leaving work due to pain is not an element of the definition of a cumulative injury (such as a series of micro-traumas occurring over a period of time), but rather a device to determine the date of injury for a cumulative injury. Here, claimant did suffer a cumulative injury but failed to show causal connection. 2209 Appeal decision pointed out that leaving work due to pain in a cumulative injury case under McKeever is an event that determines the injury date. BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER _________________________________________________________________ TED SCHEUERMANN, Claimant, VS. File No. 773553 OSCAR MAYER FOODS CORPORATION, A P P E A L R U L I N G Employer, Self-Insured, Defendant. _________________________________________________________________ On August 24, 1987 defendant filed an appearance and motion to dismiss appeal. The claimant having filed a resistance thereto the same comes on for determination. A review of the file shows that there is presently on file a petition for review-reopening and further medical benefits. it is obvious that request for independent medical exam by claimant is interlocutory at this time. Claimant's filing a review-reopening petition and the application in two different documents does change the interlocutory nature of the ruling. Rule 343-4.27 states in part: "No appeal shall be separately taken under this or 4.25(17A,86) from an interlocutory decision, order or ruling of a deputy industrial commissioner. A decision, order or ruling is interlocutory if it does not dispose of the contested case." The ruling filed July 10, 1987 which is the subject matter of this appeal is not dispositive of the contested case and therefore interlocutory. THEREFORE, the appeal filed August 6, 1987 is hereby dismissed. Signed and filed this 21st day of September, 1987. DAVID E. LINQUIST INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER Copies to: Mr. Steven C. Jayne Attorney at Law 58j5 Grand Ave., Suite 201 Des Moines, Iowa 50312 Mr. Harry W. Dahl Attorney at Law 974 73rd St., Suite 16 Des Moines, Iowa 50312 BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER _________________________________________________________________ HARVEY WILSON, Claimant, VS. File No. 773666 SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO., A P P E A L Employer D E C I S I 0 N and BITUMINOUS INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier, Defendants. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimant appeals from an arbitration decision awarding him for a fifteen percent permanent partial disability benefits industrial disability. The record on appeal consists of the transcript of the arbitration hearing and joint exhibits A through W. Both parties filed briefs on appeal. ISSUE Claimant states the following issue on appeal: "The hearing officer erred in awarding only 15% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. It should have been considerably more, in the range of 35-40%." REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE The arbitration decision adequately and accurately reflects the pertinent evidence and it will not be totally reiterated herein. Claimant sustained a fracture to his left shoulder when he fell from a ladder while working on a bridge construction project for defendant-employer, Schmidt Construction Co. (hereinafter Schmidt) on August 22, 1984. Claimant also sustained a bruised right elbow and sprained left elbow in this fall. Claimant was initially treated by K. S. Kaboli, M.D., for the injuries he sustained in the fall from the ladder. After a few weeks Dr. Kaboli referred claimant to Donald Mackenzie, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Mackenzie treated claimant with physical therapy. A year of therapy treatment failed to bring about significant improvement, so Dr. Mackenzie felt that claimant's shoulder condition was permanent in nature. Dr. Mackenzie sent claimant to Rouben Mirbegian, M.D., for a second opinion. Dr. Mirbegian concurs with Dr. Mackenzie's opinion that claimant's shoulder condition is permanent but disagrees with Dr. Mackenzie as to the underlying mechanism which causes the continued pain and the loss of strength in claimant's left shoulder. Dr. Mackenzie opines that claimant has a 35 percent permanent impairment of the upper extremity as a result of the August 22, 1984 work injury. Dr. Mackenzie states that this rating translates to 21 percent impairment of the whole man. Dr. Mirbegian opines that claimant suffers a 35 percent permanent impairment to his shoulder. Claimant was also examined by Bruce L. Sprague, M.D., at the request of defendants. Dr. Sprague opines that using the AMA Guides claimant has a two percent impairment to the body as a whole due to his fracture and deformity of the scapula. Claimant returned to work in June 1985 with work restrictions limiting him to frequent lifting of 20 pounds or less, no strenuous work or climbing. Claimant worked for approximately four months with difficulty and continued pain. Claimant states that with the understanding of his supervisor and the help of his coworkers he was able to perform his job satisfactorily. After four months claimant requested a two week leave of absence for personal reasons unrelated to the work injury in August 1984. Claimant's understanding at the time he requested this leave was that there was no guarantee that his job would be there when he returned. Claimant never returned to work after this leave of absence nor sought other employment. He disclosed that he has not sought other employment because he does not feel capable or qualified to work at his former job as a carpenter. Claimant is 35 years old with a high school education. He has been a carpenter working out of a union hiring hall for the last several years. There is no indication in the record that claimant suffered shoulder difficulties prior to the August 22, 1984 work injury. APPLICABLE LAW The citations of law in the arbitration decision are generally appropriate to the issues and evidence. However, it is noted nowhere in the hearing assignment order, prehearing report and order or hearing transcript does the question of whether claimant was an odd-lot employee appear. Therefore, the deputy's citation of Guyton v. Irving Jensen Co., 373 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1985) was unnecessary as the question or whether claimant was an "odd-lot" employee was not before the deputy. ANALYSIS The sole issue claimant raises on appeal concerns the extent of his industrial disability. Claimant argues that his industrial disability is considerably higher than the 15 percent found by the deputy. In his analysis of claimant's industrial disability the deputy stated the following: Apart from his lost earnings during his healing period which was compensated by claimant's healing period benefits, claimant has suffered a significant permanent loss in his actual earnings as a result of WILSON V. SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO. Page 3 his current unemployment. However, his current unemployment is only in part the result of the work injury. He left the employment of Schmidt voluntarily for reasons unrelated to the work injury by his own admission. To date, he has made no effort to return to work at Schmidt or anywhere else. It is unknown whether other employers would be willing to make the same accommodations for physical problems as he had during his employment at Schmidt in the summer of 1985. Furthermore, it is certainly not unusual for a construction worker to be without work at the present time in the state of Iowa. As claimant has the burden of persuasion, this aspect greatly lowers his disability rating in this case. (Arbitration Decision, page 7) This statement indicates that the deputy considered claimant's failure to seek other employment after voluntarily leaving Schmidt to be a significant factor in evaluating claimant's motivation. Motivation is an appropriate consideration in evaluating claimant's earning capacity and industrial disability. Another factor in evaluating industrial disability is prior work experience. Claimant did not testify at the hearing about his work experience prior to becoming a union carpenter. No evidence concerning claimant's prior work history appears anywhere else in the record. The failure of claimant to produce such evidence makes it more difficult to determine claimant's industrial disability. Factors to be considered in determining industrial disability include the employee's medical condition prior to the injury, immediately after the injury, and presently; the situs of the injury, its severity and the length of healing period; the work experience of the employee prior to the injury, after the injury, and, potential for rehabilitation; the employee's qualifications intellectually, emotionally and physically; earnings prior and subsequent to the injury; age; education; motivation; functional impairment as a result of the injury; and inability because of the injury to engage in employment for which the employee is fitted. Loss of earnings caused by a job transfer for reasons related to the injury is also relevant. These are matters which the finder of fact considers collectively in arriving at the determination of the degree of industrial disability. There are no weighting guidelines that indicate how each of the factors in determining industrial disability are to be considered. There are no guidelines which give, for example, age a weighted value of ten percent of the total value, education a value of fifteen percent of total, motivation - five percent; work experience - thirty percent, etc. Neither does a rating of functional impairment directly correlate to a degree of industrial disability to the body as a whole. In other words, there are no formulae which can be applied and then added up to determine the degree of industrial disability. It therefore becomes necessary for the deputy or commissioner to draw upon WILSON V. SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO. Page 4 prior experience, general and specialized knowledge to make the finding with regard to degree of industrial disability. See Peterson v. Truck Haven Cafe, Inc., (Appeal Decision, February 28, 1985); Christensen v. Hagen, Inc., (Appeal Decision, March 26, 1985). The deputy's analysis of the extent of claimant's industrial disability is found to be accurate. The findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the deputy are adopted herein. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Claimant is a credible witness. 2. Claimant was in the employ of Schmidt at all times material herein. 3. While employed at Schmidt, claimant was a union carpenter performing duties in which he was required to work above ground level with additional labor-type duties involving strenuous work and heavy lifting. 4. On August 22, 1984, while performing his work at Schmidt, claimant injured his left shoulder and both arms. 5. As a result of the work injury to claimant's left shoulder, claimant has suffered a significant impairment to his body as a whole. 6. Prior to the work injury, claimant was in excellent health and had no physical impairments or disabilities. 7. Prior to the work injury, claimant was able to fully perform work involving strenuous activity and heavy lifting with little or no problem. 8. At the present time due to his work injury, claimant is restricted by his physicians from strenuous work, heavy lifting, and working above ground level. 9. As a result of his functional impairment and physical restrictions caused by the work injury, claimant is unable to fully perform his normal work activity as a union carpenter. 10. Claimant has suffered a significant loss in actual earnings from his current unemployment but this loss is only partly due to the work injury. 11. After the work injury, claimant was able to return to work and earn the same amount of money he earned at the time of the work injury due to accommodations made by claimant's superiors and his fellow employees. 12. After a four month period of work following the work injury, claimant voluntarily left his employment at Schmidt for reasons unrelated to his work injury. 13. Claimant has made no effort to secure employment as a WILSON V. SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO. Page 5 union carpenter or in any other endeavor since the fall of 1985. 14. Claimant is 35 years of age and his loss of earnings from his physical handicaps are less than would be the case for an older individual. 15. Claimant has a high school education and exhibited average intelligence at the hearing. 16. As the result of his work injury on August 22, 1984, claimant has suffered a loss of earning capacity in the amount of 15 percent. 17. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, as a result of his work injury, claimant was absent from work for treatment of his work injury from August 23, 1984 through June 5, 1985 and claimant received all weekly healing period benefits to which he is entitled for this period of time. 18. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, claimant's rate of weekly compensation is $242.96 per week. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Claimant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury of August 22, 1984 is a cause of permanent disability. Claimant has established by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits in the amount of 75 weeks. WHEREFORE, the decision of the deputy is affirmed. ORDER THEREFORE, it is ordered: That defendants shall pay to claimant seventy-five (75) weeks of permanent partial disability benefits at the rate of two hundred forty-two and 96/100 dollars ($242.96) per week from June 6, 1985. That defendants shall pay accrued weekly benefits in a lump sum. That defendants shall pay interest on benefits awarded herein as set forth in Iowa Code section 85.30. That defendants shall pay the costs of the arbitration proceeding and claimant shall pay the costs of the appeal including the transcription of the hearing proceeding. That defendants shall file activity reports on the payment of this award as required by this agency pursuant to Division of WILSON V. SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO. Page 6 Industrial Services Rule 343-3.1. Signed and filed this 1st day of September, 1987. DAVID E LINQUIST INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER Copies To: Mr. James P. Hoffman Attorney at Law Middle Road Keokuk, Iowa 52632-1066 Mr. Larry L. Shepler Attorney at Law 111 East Third Street 600 Tjnion Arcade Bldg. Davenport, Iowa 52801 1402.40 - 1803 Filed September 1, 1987 DAVID E. LINQUIST BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER _________________________________________________________________ _ HARVEY WILSON, Claimant, VS. File No. 773666 SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO., A P P E A L Employer, D E C I S I 0 N and BITUMINOUS INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier, Defendants. _________________________________________________________________ 1402.40 - 1803 Extent of industrial disability was in issue on appeal. Deputy properly considered claimant's failure to seek other employment and claimant's failure to testify about his work experience prior to becoming a union carpenter as significant factors in evaluating claimant's industrial disability. Affirmed. BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER THOMAS R. NIICHEL, Claimant, File No. 773675 vs. A R B I T R A T I O N DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, D E C I S I O N Employer, F I L E D and JAN 25 1989 STATE OF IOWA, INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Insurance Carrier, Defendants. INTRODUCTION This is a proceeding in arbitration brought by Thomas R. Niichel against the Department of Transportation, his employer, and the State of Iowa. The case was heard and fully submitted at Mason City, Iowa on May 24, 1988. The record in this proceeding consists of testimony from Thomas R. Niichel, Keith Stacy, Evan Johnstone and Thomas Hall. The record also contains joint exhibits 1 through 17. ISSUES Claimant seeks compensation for permanent partial disability as a result of the injury to his back which he sustained on June 29,1984. The only issue for determination is the extent of Niichel's entitlement to compensation for permanent partial disability. It was stipulated that claimant has been paid his entitlement to compensation for healing period at the stipulated rate of $259.47 per week and that the commencement date for permanent partial disability benefits is March 2, 1987. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE The following is a summary of evidence presented.in this case. Of all the evidence received at the hearing, only that considered most pertinent to this decision is discussed. Conclusions about what the evidence showed are inevitable with any summarization. The conclusions in the following summary should be considered to be preliminary findings of fact. The summary of evidence in this case is quite brief. All the witnesses who testified were perceived to be fully credible. There is no material variance in the evidence that any of them have submitted. Claimant's description of his symptoms and residual complaints is accepted as being correct. There is no material dispute in this case with regard to any of the evidentiary facts. It is only the ultimate determination of the extent of industrial disability that is in dispute. Thomas R. Niichel is a 39-year-old, married man. He is a high school graduate and a graduate of the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy. He has taken a number of short courses related to his current field in law enforcement. Claimant began working for the Department of Transportation in May of 1968 as a maintenance worker. In 1977, he became a motor vehicle officer 1. He remains in that same position and has received the normal pay increases associated with that position, both prior to and since his injury. The duties of a motor vehicle officer 1 are described in exhibit 15. In general, the duties include checking trucks for compliance with state and federal laws regarding weight, permits, registration and safety equipment. The duties are performed either by patrolling in a marked vehicle or by working in a weigh station. On or about June 29, 1984, Niichel injured his back while performing the duties of his employment. Over the following period of approximately two years, he received various types of medical care for his back. There were several times when he was off work due to his back injury. When conservative treatment did not resolve his symptoms, Niichel was referred to the Institute for Low Back Care at Minneapolis, Minnesota. After undergoing comprehensive diagnostic tests, he was diagnosed as having facet joint instability and a bulging L5-S1 lumbar disc. On June 26, 1986, Niichel underwent surgery consisting of incision for bilateral trans-facet decompression with removal of herniated nucleus pulposus, trans-facet stabilization with exogenous bone dowels, posterior lumbar intertransverse fusion, L5-S1, bilateral, fat grafting and a morphine catheter for post-operative pain control (exhibit 11, pages 28 and 29). Niichel recuperated until he was released to return to work without restriction on January 29, 1987 (exhibit 8). Charles D. Ray, M.D., the associate medical director at the institute and claimant's surgeon, rated him as having a 15% permanent functional impairment of the body as a whole (exhibit 12). Barry Lake Fischer, M.D., had previously rated claimant as having an identical impairment on March 24, 1986 prior to the time the surgery had been performed (exhibit 1). Claimant has resumed the full performance of his duties as a motor vehicle officer 1. He has been able.to perform all of the duties and is not a complainer. Claimant does suffer from discomfort, pain and stiffness as he described. Claimant is, however, unable to perform a number of activities which he performed prior to the time of his injury in his nonemployment life. It is essential that he perform the exercises recommended by his physicians in order for him to retain his current level of abilities and activities. He is particularly bothered by activities such as sitting in his patrol car and twisting or bending when he inspects trucks. By the end of a workday, he has considerable pain in his right foot, leg and back. He takes a hot bath nearly every day after work in order to relieve his pain. If he has a particularly bad day, an occurrence which he estimated to occur approximately three times per week, he takes another hot bath before bedtime. Claimant has skills in carpentry and auto mechanics, but the condition of his back severely limits his ability to use those skills. Claimant stated that he formerly cut wood to heat his home, but is unable to do so currently. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS As claimant has an impairment to the body as a whole, an industrial disability has been sustained. Industrial disability was defined in Diederich v. Tri-City Railway Co., 219 Iowa 587, 593, 258 N.W. 899, 902 (1935) as follows: "It is therefore plain that the legislature intended the term 'disability' to mean 'industrial disability' or loss of earning capacity and not a mere 'functional disability' to be computed in the terms of percentages of the total physical and mental ability of a normal man." Functional impairment is an element to be considered in determining industrial disability which is the reduction of earning capacity, but consideration must also be given to the injured employee's age, education, qualifications, experience and inability to engage in employment for which he is fitted. Olson v. Goodyear Service Stores, 255 Iowa 1112, 1121 125 N.W.2d 251, 257 (1963). Industrial disability or loss of earning capacity is a concept that is quite similar to impairment of earning capacity, an element of damage in a tort case. Impairment of physical capacity creates an inference of lessened earning capacity. The basic element to be determined, however, is the reduction in value of the general earning capacity of the person, rather than the loss of wages or earnings in a specific occupation. Post-injury earnings create a presumption of earning capacity. The earnings are not synonymous with earning capacity and the presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing the earnings to be an unreliable indicator. Carradus v. Lange, 203,N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1973); Holmquist v. Volkswagon of America, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 516 (Iowa App. 1977) A.L.R.3d,143; Michael v. Harrison County, 34th Biennial Report, 218 (1979): 2 Larson Workmen's Compensation Law, sections 57.21 and 57.31. Thomas R. Niichel is an obviously intelligent, well motivated and valuable employee of the Department of Transportation. He continues to perform the duties of his job despite the fact that the job aggravates his back. The fact that he has been retained in this employment is quite beneficial to both claimant and the employer. If claimant were forced to leave his current employment, he would likely be unable to find jobs which would provide a comparable level of earnings. He is unable to perform a number of types of employment for which he has the skills and aptitude, due to the condition of his back. At the present time, Niichel has not experienced the reduction in earnings which he would likely experience if he were to lose his current job or if the duties of the job were substantially changed. While state employment usually provides a relatively high degree of job security, it is, nevertheless, subject to reorganizations, reassignments and changes in job classifications and job duties. The chance of claimant involuntarily losing his current job is, however, minimal. State employment has many positions which are somewhat unique and for which there is no counterpart in the civilian workforce. Claimant would likely have a substantial degree of difficulty finding a job in the private sector which had duties and working conditions comparable to those of a motor vehicle officer. In any event, industrial disability is a measure of a person's general loss of earning capacity. It is not identical to the change in earnings, or lack thereof, in any particular occupation. Likewise, industrial disability is not necessarily identical to a physical impairment rating. In some cases, the industrial disability exceeds the physical impairment, while in others the physical impairment exceeds the degree of industrial disability. Pain and suffering are not elements of recovery in a workers' compensation case. When all the material factors of industrial disability are considered, it is determined that Thomas R. Niichel sustained a 15% permanent partial disability as a result of the injuries he sustained on June 29, 1984. This entitles him to receive 75 weeks of compensation for permanent partial disability at the stipulated weekly rate. This case presents an excellent example of an employer assisting an injured employee to receive the best possible medical care in order to achieve the best possible medical result from the treatment. Both the claimant and the employer are to be commended for the manner in which they have conducted themselves in regard to this injury and the resulting occurrences. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Thomas R. Niichel and all the other witnesses who testified at the hearing provided testimony which was accurate. 2. Thomas R. Niichel has continued to work in his occupation of a motor vehicle officer 1 without any reduction in his rate of earnings and without being unable to perform any of the duties of the position. 3. Thomas R. Niichel experiences pain and discomfort from his work activities. He is unable to perform a number of activities which would provide viable employment alternatives to the position in which he is currently engaged. 4. Thomas R. Niichel has experienced a 15% loss of earning capacity as a result of the injury he sustained on June 29, 1984. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This agency has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and its parties. 2. Thomas R. Niichel has a 15% permanent partial disability under the provisions of Code section 85.34(2)(u) which entitles him to receive 75 weeks of compensation. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants pay claimant seventy-five (75) weeks of compensation for permanent partial disability at the stipulated rate of two hundred fifty-nine and 47/100 dollars ($259.47) per week payable commencing March 2, 1987. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants are entitled to credit for all amounts of permanent partial disability that have been previously paid and any unpaid amounts shall be paid to claimant in a lump sum together with interest pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.30 computed on each payment from the date it came due. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants pay the costs of this action pursuant to Division of Industrial Services Rule 343-4.33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants file Claim Activity Reports as requested by this agency pursuant to Division of Industrial Services Rule 343-3.1 Signed and filed this 25th day of January, 1989. MICHAEL G. TRIER DEPUTY INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER Copies To: Mr. Patrick A. Tallon Attorney at Law 25 East Washington Street Suite 825 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Robert P. Ewald Assistant Attorney General Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 1402.40, 1803 Filed January 25, 1989 MICHAEL G. TRIER BEFORE THE IOWA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER THOMAS R. NIICHEL, Claimant, vs. File No. 773675 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, A R B I T R A T I 0 N Employer, D E C I S I 0 N and STATE OF IOWA, Insurance Carrier, Defendants. 1402.40, 1803 Claimant is a 39-year-old motor vehicle officer who sustained a back injury. He was rated as having a 15% permanent impairment, but was released to perform the duties of his employment without restriction. Following recuperation from surgery, claimant resumed the duties of his employment and has continued to perform them, albeit with discomfort. Claimant has experienced no reduction in his rate of earnings and no apparent reduction in his opportunities for advancement with his current employer. Claimant awarded 15% permanent partial disability.