then no bills until March 2004, within the ninety days prior to the April 13, 2004 letter. In March, doctors’ notes indicate that Bur-ress sought to find work that could accommodate him, but that his employer would not let him go back to work while he was using a cane. A doctor’s note from April 8, 2004, states that Burress was “obviously a little bit discouraged” because he learned the day before from another physician that his brucellosis was “a life-threatening situation and he was going to require a major surgical procedure.” Also, the April letter explained that while Burress had recently been diagnosed with brucellosis, he had “only more recently” been informed of the connection to his work at IBP. See Holmquist v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 261 N.W.2d 516, 523 (Iowa Ct.App.1977) (<HOLDING>). Because we have no factual findings by the
holding letter that came into evidence without objection may be used to establish any material fact holding that a statute providing for confidentiality of medical records may not be used to shield relevant and material evidence from legal process holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding that ijnadmissible evidence may be material if the evidence would have led to admissible evidence holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact