Court of Appeals Follows Neal v. Annett Holdings on Suitable Work Issue

In Annett Holdings v. Allen, No. 12-0388 (Iowa App. Oct. 17, 2012), the court of appeals addressed a suitable work issue in the trucking context, as the Supreme Court had earlier done in Neal v. Annett Holdings, 814 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa 2012).  Allen involved the same trucking company, with the same light duty program in Des Moines as had been the case in Neal.  The primary difference in Allen was that claimant lived in Mississippi, and was over 800 miles away from home.  He declined to perform light duty work in Iowa, and the court concluded that the work offered was not suitable.  The court concluded that the distance traveled to the proposed light duty work was unreasonable, given the distance involved, claimant's cervical fusion, the restriction on the amount of time he could sit, and other physical limitations.  The court affirmed the agency, and reversed the district court in awarding healing period benefits.

The court also addressed the finding that claimant had a 50% industrial disability.  Claimant argued permanent total disability while the employer argued the disability finding was too high. The medical reports noted a lack of motivation on the part of the client, and the court affirmed the 50% industrial disability.  The court also rejected Allen's odd lot contention, finding that it was normally incumbent on the claimant to demonstrate a reasonable effort to secure employment.  The court concluded that to avoid the reasonable efforts requirement, claimant must show that any search would be futile.  Because claimant had not done so, and the agency had discounted the vocational expert's opinion absent supportive medical evidence, and had found claimant's credibility lacking (the agency found portions of his testimony "flatly unbelievable"), the rejection of the odd lot doctrine was affirmed by the court.