Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Western Provisions v. Betz , No. 1-533 (Iowa App. Sept. 21, 2011), the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the agency that claimant was permanently totally disabled, and that permanent total disability benefits were appropriate under the odd lot doctrine.  Claimant was a truck driver who was injured when another vehicle crashed into him. Claimant had neck and back surgery as a result of the work injury.  Following these surgeries, an FCE placed him in the "modified medium" work category.  Claimant was provided with a 25% impairment rating to the neck and a 21% impairment rating to the back.  The restrictions imposed by the treating physician (40 pounds) precluded claimant from performing his former job. Vocational specialists were hired by both parties.  Defendants' expert (Michelle Holtz) did not meet with claimant, and found that he retained the skills and capabilities for jobs paying from $8.00 to $14.50.  Claimant's expert (Rick Ostrander) found that cl

The Iowa Supreme Court declined to create a public policy exception to the general rule of at will employment in Berry v. Liberty Holdings , No. 10-0094 (Iowa Sept. 9, 2011).  Berry involved an employee who was injured when a concrete pumper truck struck and injured him while he was on his way home from work.  Plaintiff worked for Liberty Holdings and the truck which struck him was owned by Premier.  Berry filed suit against Premier and settled the case within the policy limits.  Nine months after the settlement, he was fired by Liberty. Plaintiff alleged that in filing his claim against Premier, he was engaged in a protected activity, and he brought a wrongful termination suit against Liberty.  Liberty filed a motion to dismiss, indicating there was no clearly defined public policy right that was violated by the termination.  The district court granted the motion to dismiss, but this action was reversed by the court of appeals, and the claim was remanded to the district court. The

Bensley v. Dee Zee , No. 1-638 (Iowa App. Sept. 8, 2011) is a case in which benefits were initially denied to claimant's at the arbitration level, a conclusion that was affirmed on appeal.   Claimant alleged elbow and shoulder problems, and in the arbitration decision, the finding was made that claimant had not established how her shoulder injury had occurred, and dismissed that claim.  The district court (Judge Rosenberg) reversed, finding that the evidence was "overwhelmingly" in favor of causation. On appeal to the court of appeals, the decision of the agency is reversed, and the decision of the district court adopted.  The employer argued that claimant's injury was preexisting and not caused by claimant's work activities.  The court concludes that the issue of causation is largely a determination based on the medical evidence.  The court finds it "clear" that the evidence did not support the conclusions made by the commissioner.  The court notes th

In Quaker Oats v. Dobbe , No. 1-536 (Iowa App. Sept. 8, 2011), the court affirms a permanent total disability award.  Defendants made three arguments in the case: 1) whether the commissioner applied an erroneous causation standard to the facts; 2) whether the causation findings are supported by substantial evidence; and 3) whether the commissioner's permanent total disability award was supported by substantial evidence.  The court finds in favor of the claimant on all of these points.  The court specifically finds that the commissioner set forth the correct causation standards and applied those standards appropriately. Permanent total disability benefits were affirmed.

In Hutton & Co. v. White , No. 1-538 (Iowa App. Aug. 10, 2011), the court, in a one paragraph decision, affirms the award of permanent total disability to claimant.

The court in Wal-Mart v. Henle , No. 1-554 (Iowa App. Aug. 10, 2011) addressed a situation which occurs with some frequency in workers' compensation claims.  In Henle , claimant had voluntarily dismissed and then refiled her claim.  The case was set for hearing, but by the time of the date set for hearing, permanency had not been determined and claimant requested a continuance.  Rather than grant a continuance, the agency dismissed the case, specifically indicating that this dismissal was without prejudice.  Defendant argued that under the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal was with prejudice, and claimant could not refile her claim (which she had done by the time of the decision in the case).  The court found that rules 1.943 and 1.946 were applicable to workers' compensation proceedings, as the parties had not argued otherwise. The court noted that claimant did not file the second motion for dismissal, but that the case had been dismissed by the agency.  Recall th

In Arrowood v. Maytag , No. 1-445 (Iowa App. Aug. 10, 2011), the court affirmed the denial of benefits to claimant in the face of claimant's argument that the agency erred in not considering claimant's testimony.  Claimant argued that his injury was work-related, in the face of records from Dr. Boarini and Dr. Thurston that the claim was not related to Mr. Arrowood's work activities.  The agency accepted the opinions of Dr. Boarini and Dr. Thurston over that of claimant's doctors and his own testimony.  On substantial evidence grounds, the court affirms.