must be (1) prompt, (2) reasonably suited to treat the injury, and (3) without undue inconvenience to the claimant. We hold that, if the treatment the employer offers fails to meet any one of these qualifications, the commissioner has the authority to order alternate care, including care from a doctor chosen by the claimant. Our interpretation finds support in the following language of section 85.27: “If the employer and the employee cannot agree on such alternate care, the commissioner may, upon application and reasonabl he deputy was well within his statutory authority to “allow and order other care.” We think the language “allow and order other care” is broad enough to include treatment by a doctor of Cordell’s choosing. See Teel v. McCord, 894 N.W.2d 405, 406-07 (Iowa 1986) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, contrary to West Side’s
holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee holding that any doubt as to the propriety of granting relief must be resolved in favor of the party when the party is not responsible for the error that caused the default judgment holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage