Marcum v. Westside Auto Pros

December 4, 2025

When testimony conflicts with the evidence, credibility becomes the deciding factor.

On 9/4/2025, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission issued a decision in Marcum v. Westside Auto Pros . Deputy Jennifer S. Gerrish-Lampe ruled in favor of the defendant, who was represented by Chris Scheldrup of Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C.

In her decision, Deputy Gerrish-Lampe found that Marcum’s lack of credibility undermined his efforts to prove that his symptoms were related to a workplace injury. Throughout the litigation process, the claimant—a truck driver who alleged that he injured his right shoulder, right arm, and neck after an accident at work—repeatedly offered inconsistent and contradictory testimony. This testimony, instead of bolstering his case, only served to discredit him.

The most significant inconsistency related to the cause of the claimant’s injuries. During the hearing, Marcum insisted that a workplace accident was the cause of the injuries he suffered on 1/4/2024. Marcum , File No. 24002769.01 (Arb. 9/4/2025) at 5. However, Marcum’s medical records stated that the cause of his injuries was a fall at home. Id . at 7. He was also inconsistent when it came to establishing the sequence of events on 1/4/2024, which further weakened his case. During the hearing, he claimed that he made a phone call to his supervisor after the accident. Id . at 5. However, the call log that he entered into evidence showed that, on the day of the accident, he actually made four phone calls to the phone number that he claimed belonged to his supervisor. Id. at 6. What’s more, the owner of Westside Auto Pros testified that the phone number in question wasn’t even the supervisors. Id . at 5.

Taken together, these inconsistencies made Marcum an unreliable witness in the eyes of the Deputy. As she herself noted, “[i]n a situation where there are two directly competing testimonies, a determination of credibility must be made and a specific finding of fact has to be established.” Id. at 7. Resolving “the inconsistencies in claimant’s favor” would have required finding that multiple witnesses were lying and that Marcum’s medical provider failed to accurately document his symptoms, a prospect that the Deputy found unreasonable. Id . In light of this, she deemed Marcum a “noncredible witness” and determined that he did not suffer a workplace injury. Id. at 14.

The ruling in Marcum makes it evident that inconsistent testimony has the potential to derail a case. Claimants should ensure that their testimony aligns with the available evidence; if they don’t, they may come across as untrustworthy to the finder of fact.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

New Paragraph