proofs of the necessity therefor, allow and order other care. ” (Emphasis added.) Here, Cordell followed the statutory procedure in section 85.27. He was dissatisfied with the treatment offered by West Side because the treatment was at an inconvenient distance from his home in North Carolina. West Side refused Cordell’s request to be treated in North Carolina. Because of this impasse, Cordell filed the second petition for alternate medical care. After hearing the evidence, the deputy found that West Side had indeed refused to provide, contrary to the statute, care in a manner that was reasonable to treat Cordell’s injury without undue inconvenience to Cordell. West Side takes no issue with this factual finding. See Pirelli-Armstrong Tire Co. v. Reynolds, 562 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1997) (<HOLDING>). Having made this now uncontro-verted finding,
holding it is a question of fact holding that determining what care is reasonable under iowa code section 8527 is a question of fact holding venue proper under iowa code section 61617 where alleged injury was triggered holding a deferred judgment is not a final judgment of sentence from which a defendant may appeal under iowa code section 8146 holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law