Iowa Workers' Compensation

The court in Villafana v. Blackhawk Foundry , No. 11-1781 (Iowa App. June 27, 2012) found that the commissioner's conclusion that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was supported by substantial evidence.  Claimant's condition (carpal tunnel and neck problems) was originally found work related by Dr. Frederick, but she later concluded that these conditions were not related to work, but were related to earlier injuries sustained by claimant.  Dr. Milas, a neurosurgeon, indicated that he believed the injuries were related to work, although he noted that claimant was a poor historian. At the hearing level, Dr. Frederick's opinions were credited over those of Dr. Milas because it was unclear what records Dr. Milas had reviewed in reaching his conclusions.  The opinions of the deputy were affirmed without further comment.  The COA initially addresses a question of whether claimant preserved error, as he did not point to any cases in su

In College Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Orris , No. 11-1848 (Iowa App. June 27, 2012), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner, which had concluded claimant was entitled to a 30% industrial award.  Claimant had appealed the action to the district court, alleging that the commissioner had improperly relied on the opinion of Dr. Buck that claimant's fibromyalgia would improve within six months.  The district court remanded to the agency to reconsider the industrial disability award without consideration of Dr. Buck's opinion on this point.  On appeal to the COA, the issue was whether the agency had improperly relied of Dr. Buck regarding claimant's future improvement. The court concluded that the agency had not improperly relied on anticipated future improvement, which would have been impermissible under Kohlhaas , but had instead relied on evidence presented at hearing that demonstrated that claimant was capable of performing her work as a teacher on a ful

In Leavens v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 11-1636 (Iowa App. June 27, 2012), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner that claimant had not established a compensable SIF claim.  Presented to the court were issues involving the preclusive effect of an earlier settlement agreement, a question concerning rehearing, and the overall question of whether claimant had established a second injury. On the second injury, which was a bilateral upper extremity injury, claimant and the employer entered into what the court described as a compromise settlement under section 85.35(3).  This settlement was based on a 12/20/06 cumulative injury.  Claimant later filed a claim against the Fund, alleging a first injury from 2000, and the second injury from 12/20/06.  Benefits were awarded against the Fund at the hearing level.  Subsequent to this time, claimant filed a rehearing petition, seeking additional industrial disability.  Apparently much to the claimant's surpris

Village Credit Union v. Bryant , No. 11-1499 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012), involved the question of whether a claimant who had been held up at gunpoint on two occasions, had established a mental/mental injury and thus was entitled to temporary benefits (the issue of permanency was not before the court in this proceeding).  Claimant was understandably upset by the events at work, and Dr. Jennisch concluded that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and should work for an employer where she had scheduled appointments rather than random encounters with individuals off the street. Claimant found a job following the robberies with another employer, but had an anxiety attack shortly after beginning work, and quit that employment.  The deputy concluded, under Brown v. Quik Trip Corp., 641 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2002), that claimant had been subjected to events of a sudden, traumatic nature that led to unusual stress, and thus had a compensable mental/mental injury.  The deputy also conc

The court in Emco v. Samardzic , No. 11-1375 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012) was presented with an issue of medical care for an injury to the arm that had occurred years in the past, but had been aggravated by work activities with the employer arose out of and in the course of employment.  Defendants argued that the injury to the wrist was a result of progressive arthritis and was related to the initial injury (2001) and not to the more recent injury (2007).  At the deputy level, defendants prevailed, but this decision was reversed on appeal, with the commissioner finding that claimant's work activities were a substantial factor in the need for the recommended surgery.  The commissioner also awarded the costs for medical reports to claimant. Dr. Formanek opined that work was a substantial contributing factor in the injury, while Dr. Gainer concluded that the progressive arthritis was the need for the surgery.  On substantial evidence grounds, the court agreed with the commissioner an

In ABF Freight v. Veenendal , No. 11-1862 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012), the court affirmed, on substantial evidence grounds, a finding that claimant's back problems arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in a 20% industrial disability.  The case demonstrates yet again that if a party loses before the commissioner, and there is evidence to support the decision, it is likely that the appellate courts will rule in favor of the party who prevailed at the commissioner level on substantial evidence grounds. In Veenendal , there was evidence from Dr. Abernathey that the claim was not work related and evidence from Dr. Brady and Dr. Neiman that it was work-related, and the court found that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence.  The court also found that the 20% industrial disability finding was supported by substantial evidence. In light of the Pease decision, which was cited in Veenendal , reversals of the commissioner's decision

In Waldinger Corp. v. Mettler , 817 NW2d 1 (Iowa 2012), the Supreme Court finds that multiple healing periods are consistent with section 85.34(1) of the statute, and overrules its earlier decision in Ellingson v. Fleetguard , 599 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 1999).  Mettler involved a relatively straightforward situation where claimant was found to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) by his doctors, was paid permanency benefits, and was later found to be in need of additional surgery for his ankle problems. That surgery was performed, and a few years later a third surgery was performed, following which claimant was off work from September 18, 2007 until December 7, 2007.  In addition to awarding permanency benefits, the commissioner found that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits following the third surgery.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner had no special expertise in interpreting the statute and held, based on Ellingson , that multiple h