Court of Appeals Affirms Award of Temporary Benefits in Mental/Mental Claim

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 concluded that she had been subjected to stress of such an unusual nature that exceeded the stress faced by other employees of credit unions, and thus met the test for mental/mental injuries set forth in Dunlavey v. Econ. Fire & Cas., 526 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 1995).  The deputy concluded that because claimant had not been found to have reached maximum medical improvement, healing period benefits were not appropriate, but temporary benefits were, and awarded those benefits (essentially a running award of temporary total benefits).  The workers' compensation commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy.

At the Court of Appeals level, defendants argued that claimant had not met the standards outlined in Brown or Dunlavey.  The defendants also argued that a running award of temporary total benefits was not appropriate.  The court concurred with the agency that the two armed robberies met the legal test for compensation articulated in Brown.  The court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency that there had been events of a sudden, traumatic nature that led to the injuries sustained by claimant.  Because of its ruling on this issue, the court did not address the Dunlavey question.

The court, after a discussion of the differences between healing period and temporary total benefits, concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that claimant had not reached MMI prior to the hearing, and thus the benefits were appropriately categorized as TTD benefits.  The court also rejected a claim that claimant could have returned to substantially similar work, thus ending healing period benefits.  

The Bryant case was handled for the claimant by Jason Neifert of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga.