Interference with Medical Care Results in Employer's Loss of Right to Control Care

In what the deputy described as what may have been the longest alternate medical care hearing ever before the agency, the employer was found to have "actively interfered" with the care recommendations made by the treating doctor.  Dodge v. Excel Corp./Cargill Meat Solutions, No. 5032411 (AMC April 27, 2010).  The physician had restricted claimant to sitting duty only, with her leg elevated.  As a part of her light duty work, claimant was made to sit in an 8 x 10 foot room with as many as 11 other workers, and she testified that the nurses at Cargill never check her status.  Despite attempts by claimant to have the doctor change her work status and place her off work, the doctor indicated his hands were tied by the employer's indication that it had suitable work for the claimant.

Although claimant's arguments were primarily about the treatment she had received at the hands of the employer, she also argued that the employer had interfered with the medical judgments of the treating physician, who had originally kept her off work.  Claimant sought to change care so that she could choose the doctor.  The deputy concluded that the employer did more than simply inform the doctor of the policy, they actively urged a change in  the restrictions placed on the claimant.  The deputy found:

This noble sounding goal is belied by the record, which shows the light duty room is not a pleasant place, and in fact no nursing care is given to the workers there, not even ice when it is requested for pain.  The assertion that Cargill wants injured workers in the light duty room for benevolent purposes is not accepted.  It is highly suspected the purpose of the light duty room is to deny injured workers the opportunity to recuperate from surgery at home.

The decision concluded that the defendant employer had abused its privilege to choose the medical care by actively interfering with that care, and inhibiting claimant's recovery as a result.  The doctor was found to be vulnerable to undue influence over his medical judgment by the employer.  The claimant was allowed to choose to continue care with the doctor who had performed surgery, and to choose another qualified medical professional to address her foot injury.

The decision relates both to the care provided (and allegedly interfered with) and the question of suitable work.  The fact that the room in which injured workers were kept was small and that no care was provided to the employees when they were in the room seems Dickensian, and was undoubtedly a reason for the conclusion reached by the deputy.  The decision has been appealed to the Iowa District Court, and will most likely proceed beyond that point.