outlining the applicable scope and standard of review for judicial review actions that involve the agency’s interpretation of law
How later courts described this case
- outlining the applicable scope and standard of review for judicial review actions that involve the agency’s interpretation of law
- holding that the commissioner was not clearly vested with interpretive authority for section 85.34(1)
- holding that the commissioner was not vested with interpretive authority for section 85.34(1)
- “Among the other indicators of the end of a healing period is the employee’s achievement of MMI.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATERMAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I respectfully specially concur. I agree with the majority’s outcome because it is consistent with the workers’ compensation commissioner’s interpretation of Iowa Code section 85.34(1) (2011). My adherence to stare decisis precludes me from joining the full opinion. This decision turns on the interpretation of a term of art — “healing period” — that is unique to the workers’ compensation law administered by the commissioner. The majority interprets that language itself without acknowledging the agency’s interpretive authority or the deference owed to its interpretation of that specialized term within its expertise. See Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8, 11-12 (Iowa 2010). I would apply Renda and defer to the agency’s interpretation of the healing-period provision to reach the same result.