Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Quaker Oats Co. v. Pattison , No. 11-1974 (Iowa App. May 9, 2012), the court of appeals affirmed the commissioner's finding of a permanent total disability without comment, relying on the well-reasoned decision of the district court.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc. , 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009), the case was remanded to the agency for a determination of whether claimant met the qualifications for review-reopening absent the "contemplation" standard.  On review, the commissioner again decided against claimant, and the case was decided by the Court of Appeals on March 28, 2012.  Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc. , No. 11-1177 (Iowa App. March 28, 2012). On appeal, Kohlhaas argued that the commissioner read the remand order from the Supreme Court too narrowly.  The court noted that in order to prevail on review reopening, the claimant must demonstrate that following the original settlement, the claimant must demonstrate he suffered an impairment or lessening of earning capacity proximately caused by the original injury.  Citing Simonson v. Snap-On Tools Corp. , 588 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1999).  The agency concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate increased disabili

In Hawkeye Wood Shavings v. Parrish , No. 11-1546 (Iowa App. April 11, 2012), the court decided, based on the "well-written district court opinion," that the commissioner correctly issued a nunc pro tunc order specifying that defendants were responsible for payment of claimant's medical expenses for his injury. Mr. Parrish was represented by Martin Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga, P.C.

In Serrato v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , No. 11-1186 (Iowa App. March 28, 2012), the Court of Appeals denied the claim that claimant suffered from COPD as a result of his occupational exposures at a meatpacking plant.  Claimant had argued that chemical residues left on the machines at the plant as a part of his duties cleaning the plant had led to his COPD.  The case was originally analyzed by the deputy as an injury case under Chapter 85, but was adjudicated at the commissioner's level as an occupational disease under Chapter 85A. The claim was denied at both the deputy and commissioner levels, which noted that there was little evidence directly linking claimant's exposures at work to his COPD.  One of claimant's doctors indicated that work at Tyson was an aggravating factor, but all the doctors noted that claimant's 1-3 pack per day cigarette smoking was of greater consequence in causing the COPD.    The commissioner concluded, based on his review of claimant's IME, th

The case of Burton v. Hilltop Care Center , 813 NW2d 250 (Iowa 2012), arose out of a unique set of facts, but has led to a decision in which the court has modified its standard of review principles and simultaneously urged the commissioner's office to rethink its manner of deciding cases. The primary issue involved in Burton was a rate question for a claimant who was allegedly supposed to receive a $1,000 per year raise, but was paid (for 15 months) a wage that was $1,000 more on a monthly basis than she had previously been receiving.  The commissioner and court of appeals concluded that the rate should be decided on the basis of the $1,000 additional per month that had been paid, and defendants challenged this conclusion, in addition to challenging a penalty finding and the award of a 30% industrial disability from abdominal injuries sustained by the claimant. In setting forth its standard of review for the case, the court cites the familiar principles of substantial evidence