PLI EXHIBIT From: . Durham, Debi Sent: Monday. July 25. 2011 6.07 PM To: wahlert. Terese Subject: Fw: Godfrey Update Attachments: Godfrey Talking Poloisdoo: ha-ued to mate sure you both had a copy sithls document. Deb From White, Noel [mautozNoelwhiteiditvsomeom] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011452 PM To: Durham, Debi Subject: FW: Godhey Update The Governor?s of?ce should have the information we spoke about a week or so ago. From: Bersiord, Todd Bent: Menday, July 25, 2011 4:01 PM To: White, Noel Subject: Godfrey Update tool. I have attached a copy of the lput together for Governor Bransnd on Sodirey. Our lobbyist Mate Eide, met with his Chief ofSta? last Friday endures veryoppreciate of the information and thought it Would be very helpful. GoVernor Branstad has been tied up with a big educational summit in Des Moines, which is being held today and tomorrow in Des Maine: 50 he has not had chaneeto review the information, However, Matt will be followin up with his office laterthis week after the education summit to see if he needs anything additional. Todd This email and any ?les with it are con?dential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. if you are not the intended addressee, than you have received this email in error and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is Pleasenodl?y us immediately ofyour unintended receipt by reply and then delete this email and your reply. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries and af?liates will not he held liable to any person resulting from the unintended or unauthorized use of any information oontainedin this email or as a result of any additinna or deletions of information contained in this email. PERFORMANCE 000025 Workets Compensation costs in lowa have signi?cantly increased since Chris Godfrey has become the lawn Workers? Compmsation Commissioner. This is no secret to anybody who is involved with Iowa Workers Compmsation claims on either the defense or plainti??eide. 1n fad, claimant's attorneys ohm speci?cally mention ?Godfrey? dining settletnent negotiations in an attempt to leverage their claim. Unfortunately, Godfrey?s cum retro does not expire until 2015 and and ishopingthat anew Govmor wi?beinc?cent?aat?md?n tenn expires Consequently.rnany lowa Employers and earners are afraid to come out publicly against Gould-w as they foar retaliation by the TWOC in the future if Godfrey remains as the Commissioner. Wefearoenainly some justi?able given ihewaythelowa Worka's' Compensation systemissetnp. decided by menieroffact (Le. ultimately thecommlsaionm). whistlin- ofpmnanent disability (Le. indum?al disability). judicialrevieworeppe?ntero?ew. mtgoingtc havethe possibilityof heingreVemingatthe district court or appenatelevela even Rathemhe Gommlsalonerhns almost eh unbridled discretion in shaping the W.C. oasis ofall Iowa Moreovo', inhwa. the Employer has to pay foran IMJE with the Claimant?s choice of phyeidan sommianoout ofpcokatcostihrthe employeeto obtainsocharepmtand theme ?nd mDVIBdoctorto giVethon 'I'hede?endantmayhayo ten more oredt'blemedical opinions appointing their position. but the Commissioner is then-let of ?totandis ?'eclo acocpt?iennelas crediblemodioal he choose so (and ?-equen?y dew) and again this typically cannot be disturbed on appeal. Ammw the WCC has great diaerelionio determining the outcome of all W.C. claims in Iowa and We]? may Employee are ?uently a?eld to publicly comment onl?a job perfonnance for that of eten higher workers compensation made. A well regarded mediator in Iowa recently commented that he is mediating much more lows Weaken Computation cases since Godfrey has become the IWGC and the some type of cases are now routinely Settling for 530,000-540,000 more than similar cases 4-5 years ago. This can he quickly con?rmed 'by any Self-Instead employer in Iowa aswell as most insuranoe seniors writing workers commander: coverage in Iowa; This is signi?cant in that many employers and oat?ers are attempting to settle as many of their elahns as possible rather than proceeding to hearing before the NI CC because they have no con?dence in the current Iowa WorketS' Compensation system Any decrease in the amount of agency decisions is mini)? PERFORMANCE 000026 not due to thehsni work of Commissioner God?ey. but rather simply a result Employers and carriers settling as many cases as possible retherthan gamblingby inking these cases to hearing. As previously indieeted, most oases are issues of foot and are notable to be disturbed on judicial review or the appellate review based upon the standard of review. Nonetheless, ?re-e haveheenennmbet ofoasesthetthe appellate com-ts did reverse Ebmmissioner did not involve solely questions effect. Seven] judges and courts haw made about the Comndeeiener in these decisions questioning his impartiality (See Smdbarg v. Rubbermaid lowe Com'toprpeals oesedesoribedin moredetailhelowwhere Court states ?his elesrrothe Court that he [and the Commissioner a?rming the decision of the deputy) is attempting to ma existing law? and also We Beef?adum when: Judge Happen stated whet most Employers ibel about Godfrey and he current agency ?Snob gremitons characterization indicates to this court that the commissioner in this instance oversteppedhiarole asenimpartial arbiter of?ie fools and became,ineseence,en advocate for the respondent?s position.? GiVeo the ABl's and other Employer! lack of public snppo? for Governor Brensted?s recent aotioninrednolng Commissioner God?-ey?seeleryin attempt toget him toresign esthe Iowa Workers Gounpenmtion Commissioner, a summary of me of God?ey?s depisiens is provided to danensu?ete what a negative irnpael his decisions have on Iowa Employees. These cases claim-1y danoneerate Gud?'ey's look of impartiality. if God??ey ooniinuee as the lawn it is not only going to oontinne increasing cement Employers WC. costs, but it also islikely going to impact other Employers as they look to loeete in Iowa or engined current opeimions in lowe. most employers are seeing on a routine basis and you can quickly see why many Employers are oneum to Emir? 5014455 (Am, 2% ll??l?jl. Lmnox Meoufeonu'inghes a ?tness center on its premises available to employees, their spouses, and their children over-the age of 13. The ?tness eentais a pen oftbe Lennon Wellness Program Health and Training; The ?tness emitter is located on Lenan penises. Employees can use the facility while on break, over iuneh. or after working hours. Claimant Wes attempting to benehano ponds (warn to center at 5:30 after getting offered: at 3:30) wheelie felt immedieiepnin and ripping sound in his shoulder. Claimant sustained a nu thiclmese tea: which was mgic'ally repsimd. Claimtmt ?led a petition assorting that his elaim should be covered under workers? compm?on. Deputy Beasleyissned an arbitration decision on January 18, PERFORMANCE 000027 2006 ?nding that this injury did not arise out of end in the course of and denied bene?ts. Claimant appealed this decision to Commissioner Godfrey who issued a decision on November 1 l, 2006 ?nding this ir?nry compensane and awarding medical expenses, temporary disability bene?ts along with pennanent disability bene?ts. Speci?cally, Commissioner God?'ey elated ?the decision by Leone: Maniac-?tting to organize and fund ?tness program is a laudable initiative that the does not wish to discourage. However having nvio?wed all of the evidence presented by the parties it is concluded that delmm'e ian on the employer?s lemming, while pmicipatlngin the HALT ?tness program, didarieemrlofand WOW provided health system on site for its employees and enrployee while lining weights (not dining work) awarded workers coinpensc?on bene?ts by Cornuriesicner (iodides. .. mo in 'l?lteCedchepideGezetteheld on which included a bowling tomnmnent, a volleyball tournemem, video games, ice cream and door prizes. Gleiment attended theeventend bowled 83011185. MeandeyClnimentrepcnedbaek pain winch he mm to bowling Claimant ?led :1 workers? compensation claim and the Deputy Commissioner issued an Arbitrator: Decision ?nding that the bowling event was not in the ?come cfhis employment" and Wes therefom not compeneahle. Commissioner Godfrey issued 30, ZMmm?ngme-erbiuaticndedelcn end?nding the bbwling lncidml did arise in the course and awarded signi?cant hmo?ts. Speci?cally, he hood the ?sole bene?t to the Gaeetlewee unployee morale and camaraderie amongst the employees and their 80pm . This decision was appealedto thelowa Com oprpeals which issued a decision on October Ill. 2010 reversing the determination Wyn)!? awarded workers compensation bene?ts as a result ofatmnding optional family fun night for employees and ?tmilies and allegedly injuring back by bowling. WW F?a NO- 5015559 (APP. 1339: Him")- Teen Challenge (TC) is a charitable, faith-bowl organization located in Golfer, Iowa. TC provides a 15-month voluntary program for participant who dean-etc change from drug addiction to drug-fee living Participants can leave whatever they like, but as long as they stay. they must follow the ministry's rules. The rules include structured time, prayer, classes-tn complete basic education, and chores. maiment was not paid any wages by TC nor comidered an employee of PERFORMANCE 000020 TC does have around 20 employees who are paid 8130' member who moeive wages and bene?ts. Claimant was a voluntary applicant for TC residential program who sought to enroll at TC due to his 20 year addition to cocaine and merifoann. Vt?hileperfouningchores, Hewnsa P313011 without health inset-none. When he realized the extem ofhis medical hills. and that they would nethe covered. he ?led orka compensation claim alleging he was an employee of TC because of the exilent of the ohm-es required by TC for pm'litipents in the program. The Depublieened an arbitration M81011 ?nding that Claimentwes not an unployee of'I'C and thus was not entitled to workers compensation bene?ts. Claimant appealed this decision to the IWCC. On eppml, Chmn?seionet' God?ey termed and married 50% disability pine medical bene?ts. Commissioner Buddy?s mtioneie was that by petitioning chutes on the W. Claimant had an mpioyeeand entitled to workers compensation bene?ts. eompensetion bene?ts. TheCou? of'Appeele ef?rmetithis determination endtheSupremeConrtdenied further review as Well. In speaking with the attorney for Teen Challenge (Pete Sand 515-698-9000). Mr. Send Indicated that Teen Challenge would have been forced to close its doors ifthie claim woe found to he compensable. Teen Challenge could not more to entry workm? . on all of its participants in its addiction program. Accordingly. not only would Iowa how lost a charitable ot-gnnizntion helping people bottle addictions, 1m would have also lost over 20 paid maidens if'l'c was forced to close doe to the Commissionu?s Decision. MAI: individual who was in mwpm?t dmgrehehilltetion program heatinent pmgram) dam-mined by Commissioner God?-ey to be en ?unployee? and entitled to wo?tets bene?ts when injured doing chores at the rehab center. File No. 5026108 (App. Devi/29!] 110. Claimant asserts oneppeol that the deploy erred in ?ailing to ?ndthet the evidence supports his assertion that heim'tn'edhis left knee on or about September 12, 2005 while working for defendant-employer. The dainty, who head the testhneny and was able to judge the eredihilltyofthe eieimmgmede e?ndingthet eletmenthed ooneootod thest'eryofhow he allegedly was injured. -For that reason the deputy found oleimuthot to be credible and marinated subsequent medical evidence and did not award Clairth any Workers' compensation hen ts. Nonetheless, Commissioner Godfrey reversed the arbitration decision. "Upon the new review of the totem ofthia ease. I completely reject the credibility determination made by the deputy. i do not sherethe deputys beiiefor understanding that the Weston story was PERFORMANCE 000029 "concocted" Thus, despite the that that the Commissioner was not at the heat-hag and was not ableto judge the aedfbility of the wimesses Including the Claimant. he reversed the credibility determination of the Deputy and sworded bene?ts. Summon-Godfrey reverses the deputy decision which awnrded no bene?ts and oompletely rejects the credibility determinations of the deputy who heard thetestimony and was able to assess the credibility of the claimant (3856140. MW 3030 The worker washending over at work and had an onset ofhnok pain. She was sent to Dr. MeMains for care. Dr. McMeins closely documented the Claimant?s complaints over ensuing weeks, and doemnemed well that her complaints kept changing location. All diagnostic tests werenegative. She obtained nnlME with Dr. Manshadi. In thefem ofall diagnostic testian the contrary, he diagnosed a rotator cn?? tear and gave impairment and restrictions. 'I?heDeputyfonnd that hnpaicmentasaresultofdie him-y. Onappeal.cnmmisaioner God?'eyrevetsedthedeputyand awarded 60% disability The defendants appealed to the district court based upon substantial evidence appeal?the toughest kind to win. Judge Huppet of Pol]: Country reversed the Commissinnu?s decision He agreed that evidence (Mamhsdi's opinion) supported the decision. But then the judge said this: ?This does not end the discussion. however. Net the eonm?ss?toner?s ?nding effect he supported by substantial ovidenoe, the commissioner-'5 applinstion of law to facts mandateaareversel whaethepmoessnsedto cometothonelegl oonolusionsia irrational, illogical. It isinthie regard ?intthoeourtbelieves the commissioners decision Uponafoll review ofthemdmawholethiseourt determines that is nonunissinner embellished the signi?cance of a "handful of events which allowed him to come tnthe conclusions he ultimater drew, while at the same time ignoring relevant evidence to the record." ?The look of objectivity utilized by the oonmdseioner is further con?rmed by his harsh, summary rejection of the testimony of the plant superintendent on the insue of whether respondent's tenninhtion was related to her work-related injury. It is one thing to Weigh competing testimony is porentially irreconcilable and make a determination as to whieh teethnony is to behelieved; it is another thing entirely to determine from a cold tenets-i131 with no opportunityto observe the demeanor ofihe ndtnesses that one of those witnesses is not just looking in credibility, but that he is either inocdrpetent or a liar. Such a patnltons characterization Indicates to this court that the commissioner in this Instance overstepped his role as an impartial arbiter of the facts and banana, in essence, an advocate for the respondent?s position.? PERFORMANCE 000030 Judge Heppert candidly states in this opinion what most Employers and Courier have felt undet- God?'ey in that meet age-my ls not an impartial arbiter and Mead is an advocate for Claimant's and the C'Jttimam's bar. Magnum Court Judge questions Commissioner God?'ey's impartiality and felt Commissioner was advoeate for the injured employee. Wm: 5025312. (Aanen Ins/11)- This 320 lb. wanker stated that. he hedan onset ofkneepain during without! speci?c incident. His knee swelled up. He clotted work him and resulting depression. TheDepntyisauedmerbiha?on sustained e2% impairment lb: amadsooateerwhioh and that the workioim-y did not cause or was Claimant?s promoting bllatoal knee osteoarthrilis or depression. Dating the enema of the litigation. the defeoaesohedtded two We with Dr. Food and Enniment failed to attend bath appoinunetlts. TheDefmdaots also setup an examination by Dr. Btooke to adapt to 8:81:88 the mantel oleint. '?ae wodser showed forthot exam. but he redhead tomdergotheltMl?test. Dr. Brooke outlined a worse ofearetolessen?te afford of even thoughliahilitywes disputed. (Belmont refused theo??etedueatment and appealed the decisionto Commissioner God?'ey had DeputyHet?nnd issuefheAppeal Decision andhereversed the erbiuationdeoision and awarded 5312.1! ?at am 2 bene?ts. NOTE: Danny hssbeen It the agency since 1987 and Deputy Hei?eml ?led a wodms' mpansadon against lows Wotk?nce Development alleging that sitting in an ahpmtin Setntumedmingaeithndelay alto-reminghomefrom aeonfermoehtBoca Roten Florida caused a back injury. Deputy Remand was awn-dell bene?ts for this alleged and?eqnently sides with motelsoon?io?ng options. delegated Appeal to Deputy Heitland (who hbnselfhes ?led a claim sit?oginairpon) tohem'appoe] decisionwhiohtoveteed deputydeeision not ewmding any bene?ts and Welded permanem and total disability bene?ts. No. 5009097 (606/06 App. Data). As a convenience to employees, Tyson had connected with Aladdin?s to allow payroll deduction to We vied: shirts. It was not reqtdred that anployeea purchase clothes at Aladdin. but it was the only place that apayroll deduction could be taken to obtain work al?rls Claimant began her employment at Tyson on January 28, 2003. The ?rst few days of etnploganent are spend in Indentation in classroom setting. 01) Meryl-29. 2003 PERFORMANCE 000031 (second day Claimant .oompleted her orientation class and matched out for the completion other work day. Alter leaving wool: for the day, claimmt went to Aladdin's to purchase 9101116 through the employee payroll deduction. While at Aladdin?s. Claimant slipped on eome ice on the sidewalls and fell. She initially received acumen! forwhaiwasbelieved tobeanapkle backpain. Claimant ?led a petition Seeking workwe? compensation bene?ts that her injury should he considered mie?mg out ofaod in the course ofher eunploymeut. God??cy issued snappeal decision on June 26, 2006 amt-mitts the Deputy ?nding that Glalmmt was on a ?Special Errand" on behalfofher employee at the line of her?ll weltmna?velythatitprovided demotion fotpurohaaingshiits and as such herinjm'y houldbeoompmaablenndei' workm' compensation. As a result, the following bme?te: As a result of this ?nding. the employer ultimately paid over $160,000 in works to atwo day employee (still in automation) who Was him in a slip and fell while o?'the employer?s premises while she was e?the clack at a place she was not required to he at by her unployer. Under the Commissioner?s analysis, a person would?be mddedtewo?tmocmpma?onhene?ta atoreto anmaployeewhois nourished as it would likele inmeaee their productivity. This may sound crazy and completelyillogioal butia perfectly logical ifyou read Commission?s Godfrey's analysis in Burlap. mechanisshm God?'ey detenmines that moleyea entitled to workout omnpmeatlonbene?ts what injured failing on alippm'y sidewalk while not at work File No. 5027740 (Appeal Decision May 25, 2011). This case involved a claimant who werkcd in a store-?nal was mhhed. The issue conceited whether the olaimanthad anypeimanem disability ed axasult ofpost ma?a-mess meander. The deputy found no pennauem disability because the clahnant failed to seek restroom tor ahnoat have years alter the incident. Also. the Deputy noted?Followlng the m?bbery, it became known that oleimant?shoy?'iend. Mr. Segovia, was invoked with the mbber. Mr. Segovia was later charged. ?led and convicted wi?iheiug involved w'uhthe robbery. Mr. Segovia stayed with clahnant'e family whenhe was cut ouhaii prior to non?ction. At the time ofhearing, Mr. Segovia was still serving lime'in prisonin Iowa." I On appeal Commissioner God?'ey reverses, :e-weighing the evidence of three experts to oonolnda the claimant au?'ered a twenty percent loss of eaming capacity. The Commissioner did not mention that the claimant's live-in hoy?iend was one ofthepeipctreters of the robbery that supposedly caused the claimant's PTSD. Idkewiee. the L'mnmissioner also went out efhie way PERFORMANCE 000032 to minimize the Opinion of the defense expat even though his Opinion Was Fully consistent with the facts. God?ey reverses the deputy decision ?nding claimant not entitled to bene?ts and awn-do bene?ts for PTSD and fails to mention that claimant's live in boyfriend was one of the pet-penntors of the robbery which allegedly caused the PTSD. gander v. 051% Auto Pam, Foe Nos. 5026818, 5028339 (Appeal Decision March 25, 2011). The claimant appealed from an nthiira?on decision in which the deputy found the claimant failed to prove hisle? hip and lower back injury atone out ofnnd in the com-ac ofhis empiownent. The deputy denied bene?ts, citing inconsistencies in the record. The 75 year old claimant re?ned and found a job delivering auto parts for an automotive store. lnMay of 2008 the claimant alleged he Mil-rad himself while'li?ing a container ofauto parts out of the hack of: book. On appeal, Commissioner God?ey found that the inconsistencies did not outweigh the testhnony ofthe spouse and the medical opinions within the record. First, the deputy improperly focused on the Weight ofthe oil ?lter and has concluded that its light weight precluded it?nmbeing it mechanism ofinjury. The claimant delayedonl)? ianpDr?IIg hi8 Friday WW On the following Monday. The Commissioner reversed this decision and awarded permanentm in complete opposition to the dentition of dictionary who heard the testinmny and was able to judge the credibility ofthe mahnam. gym-Commissioner God?-ey mused deputy decision ?nding claimant not entitled to werkcm coinpensation bene?ts based upon numerous inconalslmoies in the record and awards pennanent and toinl disability bene?ts. Deputy has been known as themost liberal Deputy Commissioner at the Mac over thepast two decades. Deputy Walshire has hem delegated by Commissioner God?ey to decide a large number of Appeal Decisions on behalf of Commissioner Godfrey. Deputy Walshhe has taken advantage oppommity toattempt to expand workm-s compensation bene?ts in town even falthet'as noted in the below examples. In addition, Deputy Walahire had assisted in drafting some he Claimant proposed workers compensation legislation and the W.C. legislative committee had proposed making such acts illegal given the inherent conflict. gt RghbeL'M? (NOB-626) (12/ 17/08 Court of Agipeals). PERFORMANCE 000033 Claimant sustained a 13% impairment to her lower estemity according to her nesting physician. The unployer paid PPD bene?ts based upon 1161? functional rating as the iniury W85 con?ned to the leg which Was scheduled member injury. Nevmheless. Deputy Walshire issued 13 8131106 arbitration decision ?nding that due to Claimant's alleged ?chronic pain"her injm'y extended into the body as awhole and she wasthus entitled toindustdel disability bene?ts. As a result, he awarded Claimant a 60% industrial disability which sastdted in 300 weeks of pennanmt partial disabilitybene?ts. 'I?he PPD would amount to 883,586 (300327852) without intersl. The Employer appealed this decision to Commissionw God?ey who namely ?ned and adopted the SIBIIOG decision. The Employer appaled the agenoy decision to the mm which reversed the agency ?nding which Ciahnant subsequently appealed to the IowaSupu'Bme Gounwhioh unsafenedthis assets thslowa Con?quppeals. The Jews Court oprpeals issued a Dmber 17. 2008 ruling af?m?ng the district court's revotsal of the agency decision awarding industrial disability bene?ts. Importantly. the Court of Appeals quoted the following from the district ruling: Finmsesdingdie deputy's decisionhereitiseiearto?te (and the Commissioner by summarily a?hnning the decision otthe deputy) is attempting toestendssistinglaw. itthusmassninim?ywdaebodyasa disability. The noun ean?ndno legal basisfersuch econoluslon. thehody as awhole whetachronicpainresults ?'om metalwme thepsin becomes invasiveto other parts ofthehody as with CRPS. The Comancludes thatthemerepresenee ofelnoniepain hodyasawhole. The Court oprpeals went on to indicate ?0de thsmost strained rmdingefDr. Pollock's deposition testhnony can support the agenqu ?nding that injury "attends to this exchange. the agency Sandberg?s injury SEEMS brain. There is no 08818.10! this ?nding?only an unreasonable interpmtation of twtimony." Finally, the Court mcluded ?We agree with the dim-let court that it appears the ageney is attempting to extend the existing law. lies with the legislature, not the agency. The district noun; pmperly concluded that the agency?s detmminadon oi?indnsuial disabilityhased upon ehrnnie pain alone must be resented." The Court of Appeals clearly recognized the current Commissitmaris attempting- to extend the current law in this ease and the decision Was reversed. but it is another {Example ofthe way most cases are con-end); being viewed and handled in the agency under Godd'ey. PERFORMANCE 000034 Wilma ?ow of Appeals reverses Deputy Walshire/Commiasioner Godfrey decisions awarding signi?cant industrial disability and noted that the agency was uttetnpting to attend oxisiting law (tie. attending scheduled member lnjtuty to industrial disability claim). WW File No. 5023051 (App. Dec. 7/2110?) In this case, Deputy Walshire issued on Appeal Decision and unilaterally reversed over 20 years of agency precedent. Sped?oally. Deputy Welshire stated: While the hearing limited the reimbmeement for the cost ofD'r. Tyler?s and otherreports under rule 876 MB 4.33 to Sl 50.00 based upon agmcy prooedent, that precedent is legally ?awed and must he reversed. Almost 25 ago, this that ammonium 01315000 would onlbe allowed as aooatreimbursement forany one doctororprec?tioner'amitten reportes thatisall?mtwouldbeallowed views Code titration 622.72. W. 1-4, Com'r Dee. 968 (App Dec 1985). That was reaf?rmed in No. 947339 (App. July 22, 1999). Home; these decisions are contrary to the plain language of876 IAC 4.33 which provides as follows: compensation commissioner ora deputy emissions: shall he ooe?ls of obtaining nomore than two (hotel?s orpraotitionem? While a doctotorpraotitionu deposition testimmry is limited by Iowa Code section 622.69 and 622%, no such limitation is contained in this rule for obtaining writtenreports, nor is there any application oflhom Whites to written Joyous. As reoently inetmoted by the Iowa Sumo Conn, this agency cannot ignore?teplalnwording ofitsmn?es. .mea No. 07-2094. Filed Febmm'y?'l. 2009. P883 7; 393.2 757 670, 673 (1m 2008). Therefore. the prim agony precede? tie! forth above shall no longer be controlling agency precedents its case! before this agency and the entire reasonable costs of doctor and practitioner?s reports may be taxed as costs ptusuent to 876 IAC 4.33. Whom ism appeal decision and reversespver 25 years ofprioi' agency precedent now allowing agency to tax Employers full 0031 ofo'btaining medical repoIteWhioh is in addition tothe Employm?a statutory obligation topayfor 85.39 decision certainly calls in to question who is actually running the agency as would expect ifeueh an monumental ?19333: was to be issued some from the Comnus' eloner himselfand not Deputy e. PERFORMANCE 000035 Show a 13m. Foods. File No 50293505025716 (App. Dee. 7114:] 1). These typeahfdeoisions are still occurring ende laetweeltUIlA/U during the middle ofthe Godfrey comm) the Commission to strike at when it issued this decision ones agate reversing the Deputy ?ndingthat Claimant was not entitled to Wo?tete? compensation bene?ts and awarding essentially apenoanant and total ?nding. Claiznant ?led a petition alleging his bilatml feet condition w?s related to his mnploymmt. Claimant was diabetic who had long history ofprobletns with his feet including that ulcers hack in 2004. Dr. Una diagnosed Claimant with ?Chm-cot that deformity? on March 2m 2007. On Mam]: 29, 2007.. Ellahnant had surgery 1with Dr. Ling. Claimant neya? reported that his foot condition was wmit related atthat time. Kathmathe?rstnodee footinjm'ywas workrelated was August 30, 2007, ?Ihe Deputy cited numeroustefermoes in the deposition and hearing hanamipt in which claimant acknowledged that he felt his oondition was wo?: related, but did not provide his employer with notioe ofhis alleged injury. In feet. Claimant ts??ed that Dr. Ung told him by April 19. 2007 that he was going to have problems it'he continued to work in his eta-tent capacity. Accordingly, the Deputy found that claimant failed to provide notion ofltis alleged injury within 90 days and awaoded no bene?ts. - Deputy Walshire issued theAppeal Decision On July 14. 2011 andmrersed the ethioation decision and awarded Claimant bene?ts toohtding a roontng?l'l'D award and noted thatClainmtt will ltltelynevar numbed: to work. DeputyWalahire found the not ?manifesf? until it most in?icted Claimant's employmatt. Deputy Walahire detetmhted that did not occur until August 30, 20071he datehe provided notice to his employer and ?consequently, the issue of notice is rendered moot." Nonetheless. Walsh?ire ordered the Employer to pay healing period bene?ts from February 9, 2007 through April 29, 2007 eaten Claimant was apparently offworlc due to 'footsmgary. 6111001113 hefm?e thedateofh'durytAugust 31,2007) that Walshire himaelfdeteanine'd to be appropriate in order for Walshire to get hythe 85.23 notice tequirament. Accordingly, Walahire found that Claimant did not tmdetstand the seriousness of his?lnjtay until August 31, 2007 (despite the fast that Deputy cited claimant's own testimony thath doctor told him at tithe of his March 2007 surgery that he would ?encounter additional foot problems if he continued to work in the some aspect ty" and Claimant admitted he did not notify his Employer that he felt his condition was work related PERFORMANCE 000036 TheDepuly had a detailed decision citing multiple portions of the record where claimant acknowledged he felt his condition was work related. but did not tinsel} report it to this Employer. Deputy Walshhe does no: mention any of this extensive tastimony in the appeal denieidn andhreezes (War the Notice defense by simply? ?nding it moot based upon the alleged he detennined to be appropriate. ?I?heEmployerhas thirty days lo?le apettdon forjudiuial review ofthis decision beforethedist?et court and itisnotknown at thistimewhethereuehnn appeal hesheen or will be ?led butwould appear likely given the lack of objectivnly ofWalehirein meaning?ieDeputy decision. mm Welehirerwanes Deputy decision ?nding that 01mm was(nneennolled diabetic) not aimed to workers' compensation bene?ts and insmd awards essentially pennanent and total disability ben?ts. Deputy Welshm- ordered Employer to pay TTD bene?ts for time period before the dammed date ofhjury. Deputy Welehire does not eddies: the Notice issue whidi the Deputy decided the case on nor even discuss the issue despite the: that claimant acknowledged he felt the condition Was work related and chose not to tell the Employu or claim the condition as work related. WITH COMMISSIONER GODFREY any- mm mini; 11:;4 1132008 ante hm Speci?cally. hammered that all alternateinedioel wheel-lags be oondnetedvie than telephonieellyas theyhed always been epndueted in thepest. In addition,th eenduet videe heathgs, the ageneyme required to purchase and intense! base set-vieenelled mee?ngplaneeomto pmvideWeb videos. likewise. ell attorneys heelved in waerequiredtomn?ehesea Web camera/8pm phone andhaw earnputu' access to pm?oipatein the hearings. The ultimate nest ofthe equipment and software for this project is not known. but should be fairly easyto damninaby??ewing the 1mm tilt the purchase ?9st equipment as well astr?avel to tl?spmehese. However, a?ermost ntlorneys jaurchased the requirement web names-es, this project was ultimately swapped without everbeing implande because the Cnmn?eeione? of?ce could not get the system to male properly. Aoeor?ingly, this was a complete waste ofmoney for a system maneuver ended up beingused and. which Commissioner God?'ey did not seek input tom any of the stakeholders prior to mandating. PERFORMANCE 000037 PERFECT God?eyhesaleobem mating the uPet?feet System" fora fewyears which Thiesystemiset?l not implemented and God?eyeontinnesto provide excuses forits delay endegeinthe cost of earlin-asput?ng lowaontheenttingedgeof technology. IMIE COSTS OUT OF 90511301.: Iowa Code 85.39 provides that a Glehnentbereimbmned by the Employer a reasonable feeforanimpah'mnnt evalna?on?um aphysieimoftheirohoioe?n. M). in thepasgthiewns generally never a problem and ME costs weretypioellyrensonehlemd not normally an issue. However. since Commissioner God?'ey has been in of?ce. 1MB costs have gotten out of control. There menuma-ousoaseswhete?od?eyand the Employers topay astounding 1MB ohm-gee for Claimant?s We. The agency does not even mention nor look at memasonoblmesemquiremeot ofthe Godhead as ame?wofooureeoxna-s Employm to simply pay the Wed charge? oft?oe 1MB physician See Wilson v. JBIC File No. 5024004 (App. Dec. 7117/09) whom Welshine (Acting on behalfofGod?'ey vie delegation of authority) mowed Dewy ?nding and 0108130 the Employer to pay $5,612.50 charge ofDr. Section 85.39 indicates ?l?t the 3 $5,612.50 fee far an is not what is Howeva?t isjustonemore malnoustbeinginctmed by Employers and Can-lean in Iowa to d?riveup coats even fm'ther. 594nm Finally. Commissionin- God?ey maternally ?areatens to talce away Workers to beeondnoledin Des Molnes. Typically, two Deputies trawl eachWBekto as previously indicated most cases settle prior to hearing and as a result nDepnty ?eqnently only mi?tlhear one or two cases dmingxhewedt atthe to. However. o?nntime will spend a few days in ehotel to hear A good Commissioner wouldoomenp with conduct road hearings because anybody will resist the removal ofroed venues due to the added lnoonvenienee and coals to both sides to me] to Des Moines along with all necessary witnesses. Commissioner (3065er never many with any elm-note approach nor requested 1'an for a belief Eppxoecli to the med venues likely" because he knows} itieen bene?ts! both sides will unite to resist. PERFORMANCE 000038 As the head ofthe Agency. the Commissioner should be looldrig at er a way no deal with such an important issue by keeping road venues but making men: more e?eiem. An. of this inef?ciency recounted by a defense attorney was the: a Deputy was in town ?rmed venue and spent 3 nights in town and oniy heard two was over that time pedod. This particular Deputy noted that he could not check out or utilize: laptop and as a resultwasnot ableto do anywerk whileatthehote] min a?endthetwe hearings. Thus, manyeftheseDepu?esm-eemefmwnin wo?dng a few hours ever a couple day period. Rather, then came up with a more ef?cient way to conduct these med vues and keep the deputi busy conducting agency work during non hearing times. the Commissioner simply takes the easy way out and threatensto eliminatemad venues knowing that both sides will resist audit likely will not happen. the ine?ieiency continues on as the road venues have remained intact past the July 1, 2011 time petied udginally preposed by Commissiunu God?'ey yet not any e?aieneies or chmges have been pm in place forthemed venues. PERFORMANCE 000039