Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR, AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ROBERT W. PRATT, Chief Judge. Before the Court is Defendants’ “Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion for New Trial or Remittitur, and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment,” filed March 29, 2007. Clerk’s No. 193. Defendants filed a Brief in support of the Motion on May 31, 2007 (Clerk’s No. 203) and Plaintiff filed a resistance to the Motion on July 2, 2007. Clerk’s No. 215. Plaintiff filed a Brief in support of his resistance to Defendants’ Motion on July 6, 2007. Clerk’s No. 218. Defendants then filed an Amended Brief in support of the motion. Clerk’s No. 224. Defendants filed a Reply on August 8, 2007. Clerk’s No. 229. The matter is fully submitted. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kris Zimmer (“Plaintiff’) filed the present action on June 22, 2004, in the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County, Iowa. Travelers Insurance Company and Constitution State Services removed the matter to federal court on October 5, 2004, on the basis that all parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff filed his First Restated Complaint and Jury Demand on October 8, 2004, alleging that during his employment with Norwest Financial, n/k/a Wells Fargo, in June 1999, he sustained an injury properly compensa-ble under Iowa workers’ compensation law. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants improperly denied his workers’ compensation claim and that such denial constitutes bad faith under Iowa Code Chapter 85. Trial was held in the case from February 27, 2007 to March 6, 2007, and the Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. Clerk’s No. 181. The jury found that Defendants acted in bad faith in the handling of Plaintiffs workers’ compensation claim and that the Defendants’ bad faith was a proximate cause of damages to the Plaintiff. The jury found the following items of damages: 1. $571,529 for past lost wages or earnings 2. $1,515,924 for loss of future earning capacity (present value) 3. $500,000 for past loss of function of body or mind 4. $3,000,000 for future loss of function of body or mind (present value) 5. $1,500,000 for past emotional distress 6. $3,000,000 for future emotional distress (present value). Id. The jury further found by the greater weight of the evidence that the individual responsible for the bad faith were employees or agents of both St. Paul Travelers Companies d/b/a The Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”) and of The Continental Insurance Company a/k/a CNA (“CNA”) at the time of the bad faith conduct. Id. It was conceded throughout the proceedings that the individuals purportedly responsible for the bad faith conduct were employees of Constitution State Services (“CSS”). Following the reading of the Jury’s verdict on March 6, 2007, the Court commenced a punitive damages phase of the trial. On the same date, the Jury found that each of the three Defendants, CSS, Travelers, and CNA (collectively “Defendants”), directed their conduct directly at the Plaintiff and awarded Plaintiff $1,000,000 in punitive damages against each of the three Defendants, for a total punitive damages award of $3,000,000. Defendants now argue numerous errors in the Court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and in the Jury’s verdicts. The Court will address each argument in turn. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Events through August S, 1999 The facts presented at trial were essentially the same as those presented by the parties in the Court’s prior ruling on the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court incorporates those facts by reference, but summarizes the relevant facts here. Plaintiff was born March 6, 1960. In 1988, Plaintiff had a decompression laminectomy and fusion for a work-related injury he sustained while employed by A-len Test Products. There were complications during the surgery, resulting in partial damage to Plaintiffs SI nerve root and an impairment of 25% was assigned Plaintiffs physical impairment from the operation. On July 15, 1996, Plaintiff commenced employment installing computers with Norwest Financial, n/k/a Wells Fargo (hereinafter “Wells Fargo”). He continued to experience low back pain and received treatment for his back problems, and for stress-related symptoms, from Dr. Carol Horner, his primary physician. Beginning in February 1999, Dr. Horner referred Plaintiff to a series of doctors for treatment of his back pain. These doctors included Dr. McGuire, Dr. Igram, Dr. Stein, Dr. Toriello, and a psychiatrist, Dr. Koithan. On June 1, 1999, Plaintiff claims he felt a rip in his back when he helped a consultant pick up papers that had been dropped in the street and were being blown by the wind. Plaintiff informed his supervisor, Dennis Woolums, and eventually was sent home from work. On June 2, 1999, Plaintiff presented at Des Moines General Hospital (“DMGH”) for treatment. According to the emergency room report, Plaintiff was seen at DMGH by Dr. Javaid Abbasi. Trial Ex. J-9. The report lists Plaintiffs “Chief Complaint” as a one-day history of “[t]ingling sensations on the three fingers of the left hand with discoloration on those fingers.” Id. Dr. Abbasi noted that Plaintiff “[i]s remarkable for back problems” and that he previously had back surgery. Id. Under “Review of Systems,” Dr. Abba-si states: “[Plaintiff] is remarkable for tingling and bluish discoloration of the three fingers of his left hand since yesterday. The patient denied any falls or injury.... He does complain of back pain, which is chronic in nature.” Id. Dr. Abbasi concluded with an impression of “possible vas-culitis” and notified Dr. Horner, who “present[ed] to the emergency room to assume care of the patient.” Id. Dr. Hor-ner wrote a note excusing Plaintiff from work “from 6/1/99 until released due to medical illness.” Trial Ex. 3-22. On June 3, 1999, Plaintiff went to see Dr. Rettenmaier, apparently on referral from Dr. Horner. Dr. Rettenmaier’s report states: This 39-year old white male presents for evaluation basically for a variety of pain issues, primarily left sided leg greater than arm, as well as some recent vague discoloration changes in his hands. He dates the onset of his problems to 1988. He apparently had an injury and developed what sounds to be radicular symptoms .... He talks about basically having chronic numbness and tingling down his left leg on the posterior aspect all the way down into the foot. He also talks about some off and on pain. Interestingly, over time, his back pain basically improved significantly.... About 2 lk years ago, he started developing some other pain issues. He apparently started having some pains that started in the left side of his lower back and chest and moved up into his arm. He talks about pains that radiate up his arm up into the left side of his face and neck. He apparently had workup at that time. He ended up being treated for anxiety issues. It sounds like he got better control of that. Then since January of this year, he has had progressive worsening.... He talks about low back pain that has been unmanageable. In the past, it has always been manage[able], but has subsequently been unmanageable.... Tuesday around 2 p.m., he apparently missed his Xanax, an hour late. He developed the sudden onset of discoloration in his left hand.... He also has been having a lot of anxiety issues. This apparently has been a significant problem for several years. About 2/6 years ago, he apparently had stress at work and dropped 35 pounds in a quick period of time.... He admits to a lot of work stress. He readily admits to anxiety issues.... He really does not describe work depressive symptoms.... The physical exam today revealed ... he appeared quite anxious. He had great difficulty bearing weight on his left leg. He was constantly moving about and fidgeting in the chair. He did appear to move to the right side to take weight off his left side. He obviously had difficulty getting up to the exam table. I had to help him. He hobbles on his left leg. He has difficulty weight bearing from what presumed to be his pain.... He has no classic findings of full blown dystrophy in the sense of swollen, edematous phase hands and touch-me-not type symptoms.... He could not stand on his tiptoes. How much was pain and giveaway weakness, I could not tell. He had somewhat of a forward hunched appearance.... Impressions: Chronic pain syndrome. For the most part, I think this is going to be the primary underlying diagnosis. As you are aware, chronic pain is basically a diagnosis of exclusion. He has so many symptoms that it is difficult to sort through.... One wonders whether he has an element of dystrophy problems as well.... Given the variable nature of his symptoms and the fact that they are somewhat unusual, I did suggest that it would certainly be reasonable to pursue studies such as a three phase bone scan and EMG and nerve conduction velocities of his left arm and left leg.... Recommendations: For the most part, I think that, given the severity of his problems, his loss of livelihood, the excess anxiety issues, and the fact that he is already on narcotics and is not functioning, I am not sure that management as an outpatient initially is really the appropriate choice for him. I think that management as an inpatient in the near future would probably be most appropriate. As far as ruling possible objective features, we can certainly do that in an inpatient setting rather than wait. Trial Ex. J-10. On June 10, 1999, CSS adjuster Tina J. Beerbower (“Beerbower”) received a call from “Michelle” at Wells Fargo informing her of a workers’ compensation claim being made by Plaintiff. Trial Ex. J-6. Michelle advised Beerbower that Plaintiff claimed he “was coming from one office to [another] and he had parked his car and he had confidential papers that started flying around. He bent over to pick them up and felt pain in his back.” Id. Michelle advised Beerbower that she was not informed of the incident until June 9, 1999, but that Plaintiff did tell his supervisor on June 2, 1999 “that he had hurt his back the day before.” Id. Michelle further advised that Plaintiff had “no vacation or floating holidays left. He has used all his sick time also”; that “everybody that works with [Plaintiff] knows he has a bad back”; and that she had spoken with Plaintiffs boss, who stated: “[H]e walks like he does any other time that he has a bad back.” Id. Though Plaintiff claims that he told a colleague who was with him at the time of the blowing papers incident that he had hurt his back, Michelle advised Beerbower that “Plaintiff did not inform Tim E[n]os that he had hurt his back on 06/01/99.” Id. Beerbower testified at trial that CSS’s policy was, within twenty-four hours of receiving a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, an adjuster is supposed to initiate a three point contact, meaning that the adjuster should have contact with the employer, with the injured worker, and should begin collecting medical records from providers identified by the injured worker. Trial Tr. at 45-46, 49 (Beerbower testimony). On June 10, 1999, Beerbower contacted Plaintiff to take his statement. While a tape recording was made of the interview, it appears to have been misplaced. Beerbower’s notes of the interview reflect the following: I called and talked with IW [injured worker]. He kept telling me that he has had previous back problems and when he bent over to pick up some confidential papers off of the ground he felt a rip in his left side of his lower back. He states he takes narcotics on a regular basis for his continued back pain, but that his back is really hurting him now. He states that he informed Tim Enos that he had hurt his back when picking up the papers off of the ground. He states he was in the army from 1977 to 1983 and was also in the IA National Guard. He was discharged honorably. He states he has seen Dr. McGuire in April and has seen Dr[s]. Igram and Stein in April. He has also seen Dr. Toriello and Dr. Rettenmaier along with Dr. Horner. He was seen in the ER at DMGH on 06-02-99 when he woke up that AM. He states he is taking Oxycontin, Darvoxet, Voltaren, Zanax, Prozac and Lipitor. He was taking Flexeril but had discontinued it. He states his treating doctor is Dr. Horner and he has had an MRI done this year. He states he has not had any physical therapy at this time. He states he was informed before this incident that he needs to do exercises and stretching. He states he does minor drywall repair at his home when it needs to be done. He states he makes clocks and plays cards. He walks about mile a day with his wife. He states he does house repairs. He sprays his deck and will replace a gasket when it needs to be done. He states he was at home the day before the day in question. He kept saying over and over that this was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. He has had a previous back injury in 1985 and had a 25% impairment rating. He worked for Allen Test Products at that time. He states Travelers settled his claim with him. Trial Ex. J-7. On June 11, 1999, Beerbower scheduled an appointment for Plaintiff with Dr. McGuire on June 14, 1999. On the same date, Beerbower contacted Drs. Igram, Stein and McGuire’s offices by telephone to request medical records, and additionally made arrangements to get medical records from DMGH, Mercy Arthritis Center, and Drs. Toriello and Horner. Beerbower also interviewed Tim Enos, the witness identified by Plaintiff. While Plaintiff maintains that he told Enos that he had hurt his back bending over to pick up the fly-away papers, Enos only confirmed that he saw Plaintiff bending over to pick up papers. According to Beerbower: “[A]t no time did [Plaintiff] tell [Enos] that he hurt his back.” Dr. McGuire’s notes from Plaintiffs visit with him on June 14, 1999, reflect the following: Kris comes in today. Apparently he had an incident approximately 6/1/99 when he was downtown and a “subordinate” dropped some very important things and he looked down and saw all these papers flying by him on the street and he went running after them and leaned over to pick [up] these things.... Anyway so his pain is worse. When I started to talk to him about when and how all this started his comment was that it started in September of 1997. He then went into a lengthy story about an e-mail message. He firmly believes all his back pain is related to stress relating from this incident at work in 1997. I saw him back in March. Apparently he saw somebody else in late May. He then had the work incident. He went to the emergency room. They tell a very involved story about skin color changes on his 4th and 5th digits and his hand and those types of things.... Physical Examination: Gentleman appearing basically stated age. He sits here reasonably comfortably but he gets up with real difficulty. He stands forward flexed, knees flexed. His spine is almost kyphotic in the lumbar spine. He moves about the room in a very awkward manner. Impression: 1. Obvious conflict at the job site 2. Readily admits stress with this incident at work 3. Documented weight loss etiology unexplained 4. Antecedent history of back problems from 1998 5. Recent history of back symptoms seen here in March of 1999 and they are getting worse. Treatment Plan: His back is the somati-zation of all his other problems. There is absolutely nothing for me to do. He needs to resolve stress and psychological problems before we can do anything. That is far, far out of my hands. Called and talked to Tina. From my standpoint, as far as the spine is concerned, he can be working full time. As far as the psychological problems and his dealing with superiors and other people, that needs to be resolved and that is in somebody else’s area of expertise.... As far as the back is concerned he could be working. The psychological problems and the job conflict situation would probably prevent him from working. Trial Ex. J-12. On August 3, 1999, Beerbower entered in the claim notes a “Phone call with Michelle.” Trial Ex. J-15. Beerbower wrote: “Michelle called and wanted an update on the claim. I told, her that I was still waiting on the notes from Dr. Horner. I told her at this time I will be denying the claim. That the IW went to the ER at DMGH and did not indicate that he was having any back problems. I still need the notes form Dr. Horner. She does agree with the denial. I told her that I will send out the denials today.” Trial Ex. J-15. Approximately one minute after Beerbower’s entry regarding her conversation with Michelle, she made another entry regarding “Phone Call with Lisa.” Therein, Beer-bower stated: “I called and talked with Lisa. She states Dr. Horner is very slow with regards to authorizing the release of the medical records. I told her that I requested the medical 2 months ago and then again last month and still have not ree[eived] the notes. I told her that we need to get the notes ASAP. She states she will see what she can do.” Id. A mere three minutes later, despite not having the medical records from Dr. Horner, Beer-bower entered into the claim notes: “Claim is Denied. IW has not overcome the burden of proof. IW had indicated that he had went to DMGH ER for his back, however nothing in the ER notes indicates this. Also IW had treated for his back about 3-5 days prior to the alleged incident. I also talked with the gentleman that was suppose[d] to have witnessed the injury. He did not confirm that this IW had hurt his back. He also stated that the IW did not tell him that he had hurt his back at work.” Id. The same day, Beer-bower sent the following letter to Plaintiff: This letter is being sent to you in regard to our recent receipt of your worker compensation claim with a date of loss of 06/01/1999. Our investigation has been completed and, at this time, we must respectfully deny your claim based on the information we received. The medical records do not support your alleged injury. Trial Ex. J-16. B. Events after August 3, 1999 On approximately August 6, 1999, CSS received a copy of Dr. Horner’s records pertaining to Plaintiff. These records were not entered into CSS’s claim notes, but demonstrate a history of care dating back to July 8, 1997. Trial Ex. J-22. References in Dr. Horner’s notes reflect Plaintiffs ongoing problems with his back. In an August 27, 1999 report, Dr. Horner wrote: The patient reports that he bent over to chase some papers on June 1, 1999 Id. A report dated September 7, 1999, by Dr. Horner states: “As I recall, the patient’s presenting complaints included severe back pain and problems with derma-tologic lesion.” Id. On that date, Dr. Horner noted that Plaintiffs back was stable, and that “periodic examinations of severe pain” were in order. Id. Beerbower did not re-open Plaintiffs claim to determine if Dr. Horner’s records affected her basis for denying the claim. Subsequent to the denial letter of August 3, 1999, Defendants also received records from Dr. Leth, who noted that on July 12, 1999, Plaintiff was seen “with mechanical left-sided low back pain. He also had a fairly graphic presentation of a manic type mental illness.” Trial Ex. J-14. Dr. Leth saw Plaintiff again on August 3, 1999, and again noted that Plaintiff was suffering from “continued back pain,” but that he “continues to show signs of significant mental illness, which appear to be impairing his ability to improve symptomatically ... his mental illness appears to be prominent.” Id. On that date, Dr. Leth stated: “My recommendation continues to be if the patient would like his pain treated then state-of-the-art approach is radiofre-quency denervation.” Id. On September 28, 1999, Dr. Leth stated that the “overwhelming finding in our office for his medical evaluation was that of severe mental illness and delusional and paranoid thoughts.” Id. On April 3, 2000, Plaintiff contacted Chris Crawford, CSS Unit Manager, via email to request “a copy of all documentation in regards to my two pending work comp claims.” Trial Ex. J-33. On April 17, 2000, Plaintiff again e-mailed Crawford, stating “I have about 400 to 500 pages of medical records to send to you.” Id. In this e-mail, Plaintiff discussed his 1988 surgery and noted that “Travelers settled out of court with me.” Id. Plaintiff also stated: I have just had back surgery [on] March 3, 2000, and I am in the recovery] phase of the operation as far as my back is concerned. Despite Dr. McGuire’s statement that my back pain is all in my head, this is completely false and I have psychiatrist’s medical record to back me up. Also despite Dr. McGuire’s claim that there was no logical surgery for me I had to go out of town and have a neurosurgeon from New Jersey put two titanium cages between my L5 and my L4 vertebraes. My neurosurgeon has told me that now there is more spinal surgeries for me. I still have severe debilitating pain in my left leg and also it is progressing into my right as well.... I have depression because of my leg and back pain and continue to see a psychiatrist for these problems .... These are as valid claims that there can be. Please treat them as such. I do wish to settle these claims with Travelers out of court as was done back in 1988.... Id. Crawford noted the following in Plaintiffs claim file on May 8, 2000: Had a very long conversation with the IW today. He claims that all the medical records from the Des Moines Providers (all) have errors and that we should only take into consideration Dr. Giorda-no who IW is treating with now. Actually the IW told me that he recently received a report from Giordano and IW is asking for some corrections due to the errors in his report. All in all, our position really does not change. Trial Ex. J-15. On May 17, 2000, Crawford wrote in the claim notes, “I am [going to] reopen this file. I am going through each and every medical record to evaluate this claim. May send some letters and old medical records out to Dr. Giordano.” Id. Also on May 17, 2000, Crawford spoke with Dennis Wolloms, who was Plaintiffs supervisor on June 1, 1999. In the claim notes, Crawford noted that “[Wolloms] recalls the IW coming in on 6/1/00 and reporting that he was bending over to pick up papers and injured his low back. Dennis sent the IW home on the DOL [date of loss] due to the pain the IW was complaining about and that he was sick due to the pain.” Id. Just over three hours after Crawford reopened the claim file, he noted that he had reviewed various medical records from Drs. Horner, McGuire, Leth, Toriello, Ret-tenmaier, Stein, Igram, and Abbasi. The next day Crawford noted that he had sent a causation letter to Dr. Giordano. Crawford testified at deposition that he is unsure whether he had Dr. Giordano’s medical records or whether he reviewed them, but found it appropriate to direct a causation letter to him because Plaintiff had identified Dr. Giordano as the only one of his providers with accurate information. In his letter to Dr. Giordano, Crawford enclosed records from Dr. Toriello, Dr. Igram, Dr. Stein, and Dr. Rettenmaier. Crawford wrote: Given all the information above, I have really only three questions and they are as follows: Can you state within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the cause of Mr. Zimmer’s back pain and resulting surgery is directly related to the reported work injury on June 1, 1999? If so, please explain your rationale. Is it possible that the three falls in the three weeks prior to the May 28, 1999 office visit as documented by Dr. Stein could have been responsible for the increase in symptoms and the need for surgery? Trial Ex. J-35. On June 5, 2000, Crawford received a causation letter from Dr. Giordano, which he entered into the claim notes: Thank you very much for your letter of May 17, 2000 in which you summarized much of the previous history relating to Kris Zimmer. As a physician, I can only go on what the patient tells me, but it is completely obvious by the well documented records from competent physicians, that the patient had similar problems with his back and legs long prior to his reported incident of June 1st. Therefore, I cannot say with any degree of medical certainty that the cause of Mr. Zimmer’s back pain and resulting surgery was directly related to the reported work injury of June 1st of 1999. Secondly, it is certainly possible that the increasing falls that were occurring pri- or to May 28, 1999, could have exacerbated Mr. Zimmer’s symptoms, which ultimately made him a surgical candidate. Trial Ex. J-37. The day after receiving Dr. Giordano’s causation letter, Crawford wrote in the claim notes that, “given my review and the new report from Dr. Giordano, I am going to stand on the denial of this claim. I will forward a letter to the IW.” Trial Ex. J-15. Crawford noted the same day that he anticipated litigation on the matter soon. Id. Crawford sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that his claim was still denied and closed the file on August 10, 2000. Trial Exs. 15, 39. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides that at any time before a case is submitted to a jury, either party may move for judgment as a matter of law. “If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under subdivision (a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(b). In ruling on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), the Court may “(A) allow the judgment to stand, (B) order a new trial, or (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b)(1). Further, in considering the post-verdict renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court is: (1) to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the ... parties prevailing with the jury; (2) to assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved ... in favor of the prevailing parties; (3) to assume as proved all facts which the prevailing parties’ evidence tends to prove; (4) to give the prevailing parties the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts proved; and (5) to deny the motion if, reviewing the evidence in this light, reasonable men could differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from it. Voegeli v. Lewis, 568 F.2d 89, 92 (8th Cir.1977) (quoting Griggs v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 513 F.2d 851, 857 (8th Cir.1975)). Accordingly, the Court must focus its analysis on “whether or not the record contains evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Children’s Broad. Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 357 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir.2004). “ ‘Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when all of the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining [the prevailing party’s] position.’ ” Id. (quoting Racicky v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 328 F.3d 389, 393 (8th Cir.2003)); see also Top of Iowa Coop. v. Schewe, 324 F.3d 627, 633 (8th Cir.2003) (“ ‘Post-verdict judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only where the evidence is entirely insufficient to support the verdict.’ ”) (quoting Belk v. City of Eldon, 228 F.3d 872, 878 (8th Cir.2000)). In making this evaluation, the Court must be mindful that “ ‘[a] mere scintilla of evidence is inadequate to support a verdict,’ and judgment as a matter of law is proper when the record contains no proof beyond speculation to support the verdict.” Clark v. Kansas City Missouri Sch. Dist., 375 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Larson v. Miller, 76 F.3d 1446, 1452 (8th Cir.1996) (en banc)). B. Motion for New Trial Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides: A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues ... in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The power to grant a new trial “is confided almost entirely to the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, 449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). This discretion must be supported by sufficient cause, however, because “[a] litigant is entitled to a fair trial, but only one.” Jones v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 185 N.W.2d 746 (Iowa 1971). In exercising its discretionary power to grant a new trial, the role and function of the jury is not to be trivialized. “The district court can only disturb a jury verdict to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Beckman v. Mayo Found., 804 F.2d 435, 439 (8th Cir.1986) (citing McGee v. S. Pemiscot Sch. Dist. R-V, 712 F.2d 339, 344 (8th Cir.1983)). Since this country’s inception, an individual’s right to trial by jury, in both civil and criminal matters has been held to be of the utmost importance. Indeed, the Seventh Amendment specifically provides that “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States,” except according to the rules of the common law. U.S. Const, amend. VII. The jury is the traditional finder of facts in a trial, and as such, the “ ‘judge may not usurp the functions of the jury ... [which] weighs the evidence and credibility of witnesses.’ ” White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 780-81 (8th Cir.1992) (quoting McGee, 712 F.2d at 344). The distinct roles between the court and the jury must be recognized and followed. For example: Whether the evidence, when offered, is admissible, is a question for the court; but when admitted, the question whether sufficient or not is for the jury, and it is their province to draw from it all such inferences and conclusions as it conduces to prove, and which, in their judgment, it does prove, and their finding is conclusive, unless a new trial is awarded by the court in which the case is tried, or in the appellate tribunal, for some error of law. Barreda v. Silsbee, 62 U.S. 146, 167, 21 How. 146, 16 L.Ed. 86 (1858). The respect for the jury system is such that the court “will not disturb a jury’s verdict unless [it] determined that no reasonable juror could have found for the non-moving party based on the trial record.” Sanders v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 315 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir.2003) (citing Moring v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corr., 243 F.3d 452, 455 (8th Cir.2001)). It follows, then, that a motion for new trial cannot be granted simply because the trial judge disagrees with the jury’s reasoning. “Where reasonable men can differ in evaluation of credible evidence, a new trial on the ground of weight of the evidence should not be granted.” White, 961 F.2d at 781. At the onset, “[i]t must be assumed that the facts of the case have been correctly found by the jury.” Barreda, 62 U.S. at 166, 62 U.S. 146. It is no answer to say that the jury’s verdict involved speculation and conjecture. Whenever facts are in dispute or the evidence is such that fair-minded men may draw different inferences, a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of those whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing what seems to them to be the most reasonable inference. Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear. But where, as here, there is an evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict, the jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 652, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916 (1946). A jury’s verdict is less likely to be unreasonable where the evidence presented at trial is not complicated and the legal principles involved are not likely to confuse a jury. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Aalco Wrecking Co., Inc., 466 F.2d 179, 187 (8th Cir. 1972) (citing O’Neil v. W.R. Grace & Co., 410 F.2d 908, 913 (5th Cir.1969); Lewin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 394 F.2d 608, 614-15 (3rd Cir.1968); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Launey, 403 F.2d 537 (1968)); see also Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310, 314 (7th Cir.1995) (ruling that jury verdicts in cases with highly disputed facts and simple issues are given greater deference). However, “[rjegardless of the rhetoric used the true standard for granting a new trial on the basis of the weight of the evidence is simply one which measures the result in terms of whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Fireman’s Fund, 466 F.2d at 187. A miscarriage of justice only occurs when, based on the admitted evidence, the jury returns a verdict that is clearly not supported by the evidence. C. Motion for Remittitur Following trial, the Court may reduce a jury’s damages award if it finds that the award is so excessive to be deemed “monstrous” or “shocking.” Thorne v. Welk Inv., Inc., 197 F.3d 1205, 1211 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting Jenkins v. McLean Hotels, Inc., 859 F.2d 598, 600 (8th Cir.1988)); see also Ouachita Nat’l Bank v. Tosco Corp., 716 F.2d 485, 488 (8th Cir.1983) (“A trial court should grant remittitur only when the verdict is ‘so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of [the] court.’ ”) (quoting Drotzmanns, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 500 F.2d 830, 835 (8th Cir.1974)). “The court orders a remittitur when it believes the jury’s award is unreasonable on the facts.” Ross v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1049 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir.1999) (emphasis in original)). Where, however, the Court reduces an award in conformity with constitutional limits, there is no remittitur. Id. “ ‘A remittitur is a substitution of the court’s judgment for that of the jury regarding the appropriate award of damages .... A constitutional reduction, on the other hand, is a determination that the law does not permit the award.’ ” Id. (quoting Johansen, 170 F.3d at 1331). Thus, remit-titur is “discretionary with the court” while a reduction for constitutional purposes is mandatory. Id. D. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides: “Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) motions are appropriate where they involve reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in the decision on the merits. See White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ. Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). Generally, altering or amending the judgment is appropriate where there is an intervening change in the law, where there is a need to reflect new evidence not available at the time of trial, to correct a clear legal error, or to prevent manifest injustice. See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998). IV. LAW AND ANALYSIS A. Bad Faith Under Iowa law, an employee may sue an employer or the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier for a “bad faith” refusal or delay in the payment of benefits. McIlravy v. N. River Ins. Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 329 (Iowa 2002). A claim for first-party bad faith arises from “ ‘the knowing failure to exercise an honest and informed judgment’ on the part of a defendant from whom the employee seeks compensation due to work-related injuries.” Id. (quoting Kiner v. Reliance Ins. Co., 463 N.W.2d 9, 12 (Iowa 1990)). In order to prevail in a claim for bad faith, the insured party must prove by substantial evidence: “(1) that the insurer had no reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and, (2) the insurer knew, or had reason to know, that its denial was without basis.” Id. (quoting United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Shelly Funeral Home, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Iowa 2002)); see also Seastrom v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 601 N.W.2d 339, 346 (Iowa 1999). The first element is objective, and the second element is subjective. See Bellville v. Farm Bureau Mut Ins. Co., 702 N.W.2d 468, 473 (Iowa 2005). In considering bad faith tort cases against insurers, the Iowa Supreme Court has held that “[a] reasonable basis to deny a claim exists when the claim is fairly debatable.” See Wetherbee v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 508 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Iowa 1993). Whether a claim is fairly debatable is generally a question of law. Id.; see also Bellville, 702 N.W.2d at 473. “The fact that the insurer’s position is ultimately found to lack merit is not sufficient by itself to establish the first element of a bad faith claim. The focus is on the existence of a debatable issue, not on which party was correct.” Bellville, 702 N.W.2d at 473. In essence, then, the “fairly debatable” test requires a plaintiff “to establish to the satisfaction of a reasonable fact finder that [the defendants’] decision ... was not based on an honest and informed judgment.” Nassen v. Nat’l States Ins. Co., 494 N.W.2d 231, 236 (Iowa 1992). 1. Bellville standard. It has long been established in general first-party bad faith claims that if an injured worker’s claim is “fairly debatable,” the court may grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of the insurer. See, e.g., Wetherbee, 508 N.W.2d at 662 (“Whether a claim is fairly debatable in any given situation is appropriately decided by the court as a matter of law.”); Reuter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Inc., 469 N.W.2d 250, 254 (Iowa 1991) (“If an objectively reasonable basis for denial of a claim actually exists, the insurer, as a matter of law, cannot be held liable for bad faith.”). Defendants urge, as they have previously, that the Bellville court provided the most detailed formulation of the standard for determining when a claim is fairly debatable, holding that, “if reasonable minds can differ on the coverage-determining facts or law, then the claim is fairly debatable.” Bellville, 702 N.W.2d at 473. According to Defendants, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in the present case because reasonable minds could differ on the compensability-determining fact, that is, on whether Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury on June 1,1999. Defendants argue that this Court’s discussion of Bellville in its ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment discounted the quoted Bellville language above due to other language in Bellville stating that “if it is undisputed that evidence existed creating a genuine dispute as to [a coverage-determining issue] a court can almost always decide that the claim was fairly debatable as a matter of law.” Defs.’ Br. at 38. According to Defendants, Bellville established a strict directed verdict rule and this Court improperly read Bellville as reaffirming the Iowa Supreme Court’s rejection of such a rule in Reuter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Inc., 469 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 1991). Defendants urge that Bellville supports the application of a “modified” directed verdict rule in bad faith cases such as this one, and that had the Court considered the authorities cited in Bellville, it would have understood that there are only certain circumstances which justify an exception to this newly created directed verdict rule, and that none of those circumstances are applicable to the present case. The Court has reviewed the citations contained within Bellville, particularly the citation to the Ashley article emphasized by Defendants. See Bellville, 702 N.W.2d at 474 (quoting Stephen S. Ashley, Bad Faith Actions Liability & Damages § 5:04, at 5-17 to 5-18 (2d ed.1997) (hereinafter “Ashley Article”) (“[A]n insurer is innocent of bad faith as a matter of law ... if the insurer took a position in regard to the claim that reasonable minds could hold. Unless the trial court is prepared to grant a directed verdict to the insured on his claim under the policy and to hold that reasonable minds could not disagree as to the insured’s entitlement to proceeds under the policy, it follows that reasonable minds could disagree about the insured’s entitlement to policy proceeds. Therefore, the insurer should be entitled to a directed verdict in its favor on the insured’s bad faith claim unless the insured is entitled to a directed verdict in his favor on the policy claim.”)). The quoted Ashley passage discusses the directed verdict rule, adhered to by “many jurisdictions.” Ashley Article at § 5:4. The article also discusses exceptions to the rule that a directed verdict must be granted in favor of one side or the other, such as when the insurer presents false testimony, or intentionally collects just enough evidence to deny a claim. Id. Even assuming that none of the exceptions discussed in the Ashley article are applicable to the present case, however, the fact remains that the Bellville court did not explicitly adopt the directed verdict rule and never indicated an intent to depart from its prior law on the issue. Indeed, the plain language of the Bellville decision, just prior to the Ashley quotation, states that “[wjhether a claim is fairly debatable can generally be decided as a matter of law by the court.” Bellville, 702 N.W.2d at 473. Moreover, in the two years since Bellville was decided, the Court cannot find one Iowa case interpreting Bellville in the way urged by Defendants. The Court has thoroughly reviewed this issue in its prior ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and incorporates its reasoning and discussion of the matter herein. See Order at 39 (Clerk’s No. 109) (“[T]he Court finds it likely that had the Iowa Supreme Court intended such a sweeping change, it would have made the change explicitly, as the effect of Defendants’ interpretation would be to virtually exclude the possibility of trial by jury in every first-party bad faith tort claim.”). 2. Was Plaintiffs June 1, 1999 claim fairly debatable as a matter of law? At the summary judgment stage of these proceedings, and during trial, Defendants argued that there could be no liability in this case because Plaintiff “never tendered his workers’ compensation claim as a material aggravation of a pre-existing condition.... When Plaintiff Zimmer submitted his 06/01/99 DOL claim, he submitted it as a new injury.” Defs.’ Resistance to PL’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 2. The Court found this position to be without merit, in light of the “well-established principle in workmen’s compensation law if a claimant had a preexisting condition or disability, aggravated, accelerated, worsened or ‘lighted up’ by an injury which arose out of and in the course of employment resulting in a disability found to exist, he would accordingly be entitled to compensation.” Order at 43 (Clerk’s No. 109, quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. Van Cannon, 459 N.W.2d 900, 904 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990)). Defendants now argue that, at all times, Plaintiffs claim was properly denied because it was always fairly debatable whether Plaintiff was physically injured at all on June 1,1999. Plaintiff argues that Defendants never claimed that the basis for denying Plaintiffs claim was a question as to whether he had actually sustained an injury on June 1, 1999, and that Defendants’ argument is prohibited as a result. The Court is inclined to agree. At no stage of these proceedings, prior to the present motion, have Defendants ever adopted such a position. Defendants, however, insist that the fact that Beerbower’s denial letter stated that the “medical records do not support your alleged injury” demonstrates that Defendants questioned whether the injury had occurred or not. Moreover, Defendants point out that Beerbower’s claims notes discuss a lack of corroboration that Plaintiff had suffered an injury to his back. Notably, however, the claims notes discuss whether there is corroboration of an observable injury to Plaintiffs back, not whether Plaintiff suffered an actual physical trauma on June 1, 1999. Even assuming, however, that Defendants did properly raise the question of whether Plaintiff was injured on June 1, 1999, judgment as a matter of law is unwarranted. Defendants point to the following facts in support of their contention that, at all times, there was an objectively debatable issue as to whether the June 1, 1999 injury actually occurred: 1) Tim Enos failed to corroborate Plaintiffs account; 2) emergency room records report Plaintiff denied any fall or injury; 3) emergency room records and Dr. Rettenmaier’s records did not have any reference to a June 1, 1999 injury; 4) Dr. Horner’s records lacked any contemporaneous reference to the June 1, 1999 injury. In notes articulating her basis for denying Plaintiffs workers’ compensation claim on August 3, 1999, Tina Beerbower stated: “Claim is denied. IW has not overcome the burden of proof. IW had indicated that he [ ] went to DMGH ER for his back, however nothing in the ER notes indicates this. Also IW had treated for his back about 3-5 days prior to the alleged incident. I also talked with the gentleman that was suppose[d] to have witnessed the incident. He did not confirm that this IW had hurt his back at work.” Trial Ex. J-15. At the time Beerbower made this determination, she was aware that Plaintiff had told his supervisor, Dennis Wollums, that he hurt his back, and that Wollums had stated “he walks like he does any other time he has a bad back.” Beerbower had also spoken with Plaintiff himself, and noted in the claim notes that Plaintiff told her he has suffered from “continued back pain,” but “that his back is really hurting him now.” Beerbower also wrote that Plaintiff “kept saying over and over that this was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.” Trial Ex. J-7. On June 11, 1999, Beerbower contacted Tim Enos, who confirmed he had witnessed Plaintiff picking up papers blowing around, but that Plaintiff “did not inform him that he had hurt his back.” Beerbower had also collected the following medical records: (1) Dr. McGuire’s March 24, 1999 report, stating that Plaintiffs MRI was “pretty reasonable looking,” but that Plaintiff had suffered a “recent worsening of back and leg complaints, etiology unknown”; (2) Dr. Igram’s May 17, 1999 report, articulating Plaintiffs back problems and surgical history; (3) Dr. Stein’s May 28, 1999 report noting that Plaintiff “is being seen today for chronic low back and leg pain.” Dr. Stein also stated that Plaintiffs “gait was a little bizarre,” “the MRI shows some degenerative disease at the L-5 S-l level,” and his belief that “a lot of his problems are more on an emotional basis than on a physical basis”; (4) Dr. Abbasi’s Emergency Room notes from DMGH stating under “past medical history” that Plaintiff “is remarkable for back problems.” Dr. Abbasi stated that Plaintiff complained of discoloration and tingling in his fingers, but “denied any falls or injury.... He does complain of back pain, which is chronic in nature.” Dr. Abbasi also stated that he notified Dr. Horner and she “present[ed] to the Emergency Room to assume care of’ Plaintiff; (5) Dr. Rettenmaier’s notes, dated June 3, 1999, stating that Plaintiff was seen on referral from Dr. Horner for “evaluation [of a] variety of pain issues” that had improved since his surgery, but developed into “some other pain issues” about 2]é years before, including “progressive worsening” since January 1999. “He talks about low back pain that has been unmanageable. In the past, it has always been manage[able], but has subsequently been unmanageable.... ” Plaintiff appeared “anxious” at his exam with Dr. Retten-maier; “he had great difficulty bearing weight on his left leg.... He did appear to move to the right side to take weight off his left side. He obviously had difficulty getting up to the exam table. I had to help him. He hobbles on his left leg. He has difficulty weight bearing from what presumed to be his pain.... He has no classic findings of full blown dystrophy in the sense of swollen, edematous phase hands and touch-me-not type symptoms .... He could not stand on his tiptoes. How much was pain and giveaway weakness, I could not tell. He had somewhat of a forward hunched appearance.... ” Dr. Ret-tenmaier stated his belief that Plaintiff suffered from “Chronic Pain Syndrome” and suggested “it would certainly be reasonable to pursue studies such as a three phase bone scan and EMG and nerve conduction velocities of his left arm and left leg .... ”; and (6)Dr. McGuire’s June 14, 1999 report stating that Plaintiff “had an incident approximately 6/1/99” and that “his pain is [now] worse.” Dr. McGuire noted that Plaintiff “gets up with real difficulty ... his spine is almost kyphotic in the lumbar spine, he moves about the room in a very awkward manner.” Dr. McGuire stated that “as far as the back is concerned he could be working. The psychological problems and the job conflict situation would probably prevent him from working.” Beerbower did not have any notes from Dr. Horner, Plaintiffs primary treating physician, either regarding his underlying back or emotional problems, or from the emergency room visit following the June 1, 1999 injury. Beerbower admits that she did not analyze Plaintiffs claim as one for material aggravation of a pre-existing injury or for the possibility of any mental health claims. Rather, she examined the submission of Plaintiffs workers’ compensation claim strictly as one for a “new injury.” Beerbower also admits that, though she had asked for a causation letter from Dr. McGuire, she had not received one on the date Plaintiffs claim was first denied. Defendants argue that Plaintiff only claimed a back injury, but that his actual injuries were psychological. Regardless, according to Defendants, he needed to show a back injury to obtain compensation. Iowa law, at the time Beerbower first adjusted Plaintiffs claim, supports this proposition, holding that to recover for mental injuries based on a physical trauma, the claimant must have suffered an actual physical trauma. Newman v. John Deere Ottumwa Works of Deere & Co., 372 N.W.2d 199, 202-03 (Iowa 1985) (“If the physical trauma was imaginary it can form no basis for recovery....”). Thus, according to Defendants, the decision to deny Plaintiffs claim was entirely reasonable because there was no corroboration of his injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the Court must on the present motion, Defendants position is unconvincing. First, Defendants’ contention that there was simply no corroboration of Plaintiffs injury at the time his claim was denied is without merit. Plaintiff had personally told both his supervisor and Beerbower of his injury. He also claims to have told Tim Enos. While Enos did not remember Plaintiff stating he had been hurt, Enos did confirm all of the circumstances that Plaintiff identified as leading up to his injury. The emergency room notes from June 2, 1999 clearly state that Plaintiff was complaining of back pain, though they also pointed out that the back pain was chronic in nature. Given the medical records that Defendants had in their possession about Plaintiffs prior back problems, this statement in the emergency room notes is no great surprise. Dr. McGuire’s June 14, 1999 report referenced the work-related injury and the worsening of Plaintiffs back pain. Additionally, Dr. Horner’s notes, which Beerbower requested but had not received before denying Plaintiffs claim, indicated as Plaintiffs chief complaint “severe back pain. Chronic since yesterday.” Dr. Horner’s notes are dated June 2, 1999, the day following the claimed work-related injury. Dr. Horner’s records in the following month showed that Plaintiff was taken off work indefinitely, was told to consult with various doctors, and noted that Plaintiffs back pain was severe since the time of his emergency room visit. Dr. Leth’s records, dated July 12,1999, also note that his back problems may have been exacerbated by the June 1,1999 incident. And on June 8, 1999, Plaintiff told Dr. Koithan that he had injured his back at work and had been off work. The Court finds Defendants’ claim that it was fairly debatable whether Plaintiff ever suffered an injury on June 1, 1999 to be much like the basis for denial proffered, and ultimately rejected as unreasonable, in Etten v. United States Food Service, Inc., 446 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D.Iowa 2006). In Etten, the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice while making a work-related delivery on February 28, 2008. 446 F.Supp.2d at 971. The plaintiff did not think his injury was serious, but by the weekend, his pain had become progressively worse. Id. at 971-72. In the coming weeks, plaintiffs pain became even worse, and by March. 22, 2003, he was unable to stand, sleep, or move. Id. at 972. A few days later, an MRI revealed a herniated disc in plaintiffs back. Id. The plaintiff suffered another fall at work on April 3, 2003. After this fall, he went to a surgeon regarding his herniated disc and underwent surgery within a day. Id. at 972-73. The plaintiff did not report the first fall to his employer until March 23, 2003, but reported the second fall the same day it occurred. Id. at 973. Plaintiffs claim for workers’ compensation benefits was denied. Id. The claims adjuster noted that Plaintiff did not report the first fall to his employer right away and that he reported to one of his medical providers on March 24, 2003 that he was “good until 2 days ago.” Id. The claims adjuster opined that, because the plaintiff did not work on March 22, 2003, his back injuries were non-work related. Id. The district court found that a reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs claims for workers’ compensation benefits were not fairly debatable. Id. at 976. Specifically, the court found that nothing in the treatment notes provided medical evidence that the plaintiff did not suffer a herniated disc on the date of his first fall and that the defendant had no evidence that plaintiffs injuries stemmed from another occurrence. Id. In the present case, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Defendants’ claims that Plaintiff did not suffer a work related injury on June 1, 1999 are based “purely on speculative inferences from a highly selective reading of Plaintiffs medical records.” Id. at 977. As noted, the medical records, while not specifically stating that an injury on June 1, 1999 was the cause of Plaintiffs problems, do indicate a likelihood that something occurred on that date. Further, later medical records clearly linked Plaintiffs injuries to a June 1, 1999 incident, yet Defendants continued to deny his claim even in the face of that later evidence that the injury occurred. While true that the only real source of information about the injury is the Plaintiff himself, the Court is not aware of any requirement that a workers’ compensation claimant have witnesses to the actual injury to recoup benefits. A reasonable jury could have found that the information known to Beerbower at the time she denied the claim, and certainly the further information known at later points in the claims process, prohibited a finding that the denial decision was reasonable. Essentially, the Court concludes that the evidence in this case, specifically the evidence of non-injury asserted by the Defendants, is subject to more than one inference, prohibiting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants on the question of whether an objectively reasonable basis existed for denying Plaintiffs claim. See McIlravy, 653 N.W.2d at 333 (“The reasonableness of the denial of a workers’ compensation claim by an insurer is a question of law only when the evidence is undisputed and only one inference can be drawn from the evidence. The facts of this case were undisputed, but the inferences were not.”). Further, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Defendants failed to act reasonably in evaluating Plaintiffs claim when they continued to deny Plaintiffs claim after August 3, 1999, despite receiving additional medical documentation. Plaintiff “tendered” an injury claim to his employer, triggering a duty by the workers’ compensation carrier to act reasonably in regards to his claim. The duty to act reasonably is an affirmative one, and “includes the duty to fully and fairly investigate a claim rather than to stand back and deny a claim simply because they wish to deny it.” See Pickering v. Squealer Feeds, No. 99-0295, 2000 WL 961920, at *8 (Iowa Ct.App. July 12, 2000) (citation omitted). On the record established at trial, there was more than sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that Defendants did not fully and fairly investigate Plaintiffs claims. Defendants ignored viable bases upon which Plaintiff could legally be entitled to benefits and now claim to have believed that Plaintiff was never really injured on June 1, 1999, despite Plaintiffs own testimony that he was injured and substantial evidence that can be viewed as corroborative of that injury. Add to this the fact that Defendants did not have in its possession all relevant documents, most notably Dr. Horner’s medical records regarding Plaintiffs emergency room visit, wherein she indicated that his pain was worse in his back since the previous day, it is clear that the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Plaintiffs claim was fairly debatable at the time Defendants denied it on August 3, 1999, or at other times of denial later in the parties’ interactions. Moreover, even assuming that Beerbower actually had a reasonable basis for doubting that a work-related injury occurred on June 1, 1999 when she denied Plaintiffs workers’ compensation claim on August 3, 1999, there are clearly additional factual questions regarding the viability of that position at later points in time. While a claim may be fairly debatable at one point in time, if the insurer becomes aware at a later date that the claim is no longer fairly debatable, liability for bad faith may still be imposed. See Squealer Feeds v. Pickering, 530 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Iowa 1995) (“In other words, a continued delay in payment may be unreasonable even though the original denial was not.... Any documents showing new information coming to the attention of [the insurer] after its denial would be relevant to whether it was reasonable for the company to persist in its denial of benefits.”) (abrogated on other grounds); Dirks v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 857, 862 (Iowa 1991) (“The more difficult question is whether, at some later date, [the insurer] became aware there was no reasonable basis to continue denying plaintiffs’ claim....”). In the present ease, Defendants received Dr. Horner’s notes of Plaintiffs emergency room visit on August 20, 1999. Beerbower did not enter Dr. Horner’s notes into the claim system and did not reopen Plaintiffs file to determine if Dr. Horner’s records made continued denial appropriate. Indeed, Dr. Horner’s records showed that Plaintiff was taken off work indefinitely, was told to consult with various doctors, and noted that Plaintiffs back pain was severe since the time of his emergency room visit. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion that “nothing in Dr. Horner’s records causally connected the back pain to a June 1 incident,” Dr. Horner’s July 27, 1999 appointment notes discuss the June 1, 1999 injury and recount that Plaintiff “had to leave work later that morning ... due to the pain in his back. The next day he went to the Des Moines General emergency room where I saw and evaluated him.” Despite this information from Dr. Horner, Tim Enos’ confirmation that Plaintiff had bent over to pick up papers, Plaintiffs own version of events, Plaintiffs report to his supervisor that he suffered an injury, and the supervisor’s confirmation of Plaintiffs report and statement that Plaintiff was walking as he usually did when he has a bad back, Beerbower made no further effort to clari