Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Culpepper v. CNH Industrial America LLC , No. 24-2040 (Iowa App. Oct. 29, 2025) The agency denied claimant's alleged back pain, rejecting the report of the treating physician and also finding claimant had not provided timely notice of the decision.  On judicial review, the district court reversed both findings and remanded the claim to the agency for further proceedings.  The Court of Appeals affirms the holdings of the district court. Claimant alleged that he suffered a neck injury while at work and alleged injury dates of 6/8/21, 9/3/21 and 10/29/21. Dr. Abernathey, the treating physician, provided statements concerning the injury on three occasions.  In the first two of those statements, which were referenced in the opinion of the deputy, Dr. Abernathey indicated that work activities did not "cause" the work injury.  In the third report, not discussed by the deputy, Dr. Abernathey opined "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [Culpepper's] wo...

  Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan , No. 23-1402 (Iowa Oct. 3, 2025) In this case interpreting 85.34(2)(v) of the Act, the Supreme Court concludes that an employee who returns to work at the same or greater wages following an otherwise industrial work injury is to have that injury considered functionally under 85.34(2)(v)(3). The decision reverses an earlier 2-1 decision of the Court of Appeals that had concluded the statute was unclear and was to be interpreted liberally. The court had concluded claimant's injury was to be determined industrially. Claimant suffered an injury at work and continued to work for the employer for 11 months with some work restrictions.  After returning to work, he was paid wages that equaled or exceeded the wages he had previously received. He testified that his pain caused him to miss "a fair bit of work." He left the job after 11 months to take a different job and move closer to his family.  He subsequently found work, making more than he was...

  Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. , No. 24-1991 (Iowa App. Oct. 1 2025) Claimant suffered an alleged work injury.  Prior to this injury, claimant had a lengthy history of injury, which had resulted in a 20 pound lifting restriction prior to the time he began working for the employer. In his position with the employer, claimant was required to lift between 25 and 50 pounds.  Claimant tripped while at work, fell to the cemet and hit his head.  He claimed injuries to his low back, leg and right ankle.  He was diagnosed with right sided sciatic radicular pain and lumbago with sciatica.  A CT scan desmonstrated severe degenerative disc disease.  Surgery was recommended by the surgeon chosen by the employer who related the surgery to claimant's work injury. A DME found that claimant's proposed back surgery was not related to the work injury, but to claimant's underlying conditions. The DME concluded claimant had back strain, with no permanent impai...

  Turner v. NCI Building Systems , No. 23-1003 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant was found to have suffered a mental health injury at work, but that injury was found not to be permanent.  The commissioner also concluded claimant had suffered injuries to his bilateral lower extremities, left shoulder and thoracic spine and awarded a 40% industrial disability. Claimant sought to have the report of a pain psychologist, provided two days after hearing, into evidence and this request was initially denied by the deputy, but allowed by the commissioner. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, denying both the employer's appeal and claimant's cross-appeal. The Court notes first that challenging the agency's decision on the basis that the decision was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable was a "heavy lift." The Court considered the admission of the pain psychologist's decision and noted that the lateness of the report was due to the fact ...

  Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. , No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction. The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.   The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently soug...

  Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan , No. 23-1402 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury at work and continued to work for the employer for 11 months with some work restrictions.  He left the job after 11 months to take a different job and move closer to his family.  He subsequently found work, making more than he was making at the time of his job with Den Hartog.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's back injury should be compensated industrially under the provisions of 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner concluded that the functional impairment provision of the statute did not apply to claimant because he voluntarily separated from the employer and had not been terminated by the employer. The district court affirmed, finding that 85.34(2)(v)'s bifurcated process would be imposed only when the employer returned to work and was then terminated by the employer. On review, the Court concludes that 85.34(2)(v) recognizes two categories for benefit calc...