Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Tomlinson Cannon v. Whited , No. 1-878 (Iowa App. Jan. 19, 2012), the court affirmed a decision of the agency which had concluded that claimant was entitled to alternate medical care.  Claimant had originally seen Dr. Neiman for his injuries, and later filed an alternate medical care proceeding to allow him to continue care with Dr. Neiman.  During the course of the case, Dr. Neiman recommended that claimant see a podiatrist for a foot injury he had developed.  Defendants had earlier indicated that claimant should see another physician, but claimant declined to see that physician.  On the alternate medical care proceeding, claimant argued, and the agency held, that since Dr. Neiman was the authorized treating physician, the employer was not entitled to interfere with his recommendations for care.  The finding of the agency was consistent with the agency's general rule that the recommendations of the authorized treating physician cannot be contravened by the employer. Defendant

In Kremenak v. Steiner Construction , No. 1-875 (Iowa App. Jan. 19, 2012), the court affirmed a commissioner decision finding that claimant had not proven his right to additional benefits in a review-reopening proceeding.  The case had previously been remanded for a determination in light of the Kohlhaas case which found that the expectations of the parties (the "contemplation standard") was not a consideration in determining whether review-reopening was appropriate.  The agency concluded that even without the contemplation standard, claimant had failed to prove his case on review-reopening.  Claimant appealed, arguing that the decision of the commissioner had simply regurgitated the earlier opinion.  The court of appeals found that its earlier decision had not presupposed that simply because  there was an error in applying the contemplation standard, the claimant would prevail.  The agency considered the evidence and concluded, based on the expert testimony and the claima

In Cozad v. Russell Corp. , No. 1-864 (Iowa App. Jan. 19, 2012), the Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision affirming a decision of the district court, which had reversed the agency action denying benefits.  The remarkable aspect of this decision is the fact that Cozad was decided only weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Pease , in which the court had indicated its reaffirmance of the importance of substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases. Cozad involved a fairly straightforward back injury, in which the claimant reported an acute injury at work.  She had previously had a significant history of back problems, but all of the doctors who opined on the issue of causation found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and caused a permanent impairment.  The agency found that claimant had suffered only a temporary impairment as a result of the injury.  The decision was based on the fact that the doctors who opined on causation were

As previously reported, the Governor reduced Commissioner Godfrey's salary to the lowest level for the position after the commissioner refused to resign, as the Governor had requested.  The commissioner had noted at that time that his term was for six years, and was not a political appointment, as are those of so many other government officials.  The Governor then reduced the salary based on his assertion that under the commissioner's tenure, Iowa's workers' compensation system had suffered.  The commissioner noted that his performance reviews had been exemplary. On January 11, 2012, the commissioner filed a lawsuit against the governor and the state, alleging that defendants had engaged in defamation, harassment, sexual discrimination and extortion.  The documents can be found at http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/01/11/iowa-workers-compensation-commissioner-files-1-million-lawsuit-against-the-state/. The state tort law claims relate to the mann

The case of Square D Company v. Plagmann ,No. 1-869 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2011) addressed an issue that does not appear frequently before the appellate courts - the question of tinnitus.  In Plagmann , the court concluded that the decision of the deputy commissioner who found that claimant's tinnitus was related to work was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Tyler concluded that claimant's work with Square D had resulted in hearing loss and tinnitus, and provided a 4.5% impairment rating.  Dr. Tyler also found, incorrectly, that claimant had not worn hearing protection until he had worked with the employer for fourteen years (claimant had testified that even though there was no hearing protection program, he had worn hearing protection).  Dr. Hoisington concluded that claimant's hearing loss and tinnitus were not related to his work, in part because his hearing loss continued to worsen after he left work.  The deputy who heard the case sided with Dr. Hoisington, but ref

In one of the more detailed discussions of substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases, the Iowa Supreme Court, in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Pease , 807 NW2d 839 (Iowa 2011), reversed the decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals that had denied benefits to claimant.  Pease is a classic example of the weighing of the medical evidence that the commissioner must do in reaching a conclusion.  In Ms. Pease's case, the agency concluded that claimant's claim of altered gait, back injuries, and depression were supported by the evidence, and awarded permanent total disability.  The district court affirmed on these issues, but the court of appeals reversed, finding that substantial evidence did not support the findings of the agency. Ms. Pease's original injury was to her right ankle, and she complained that this injury caused her to have an altered gait, contributing to injuries to her back and left ankle.  She also alleged that as a result of these injur