Iowa Workers' Compensation

Ottumwa Manufacturing, d/b/a Cadbury Schweppes Holding, Inc. v. Boyd , No. 12-0889 (Iowa App.  Jan. 24, 2013) addressed an extent of disability issue for a claimant with a serious right hip injury, which followed a crush injury to his feet.  The evidence was conflicting on the question of whether the hip injury was a sequella to the foot injury, but the agency found, and the court affirmed, that there was ample evidence, in the form of reports by Dr. Pollack (later walked back by the doctor) and Dr. Stoken, to conclude that the hip injury was a sequella. On the issue of the extent of impairment, the court concluded that, although only Dr. Stoken imposed restrictions on claimant, this medical report, combined with an analysis of the other factors of industrial disability, was sufficient substantial to support affirmation of the agency.  The court concluded that the agency's decision denying permanent total status was supported by substantial evidence because claimant's treatin

In Pilgrim's Pride v. Eakins , No. 12-0901 (Iowa App Jan. 24, 2013), the court of appeals addressed the issue of partial commutation, an issue that does not come before the appellate courts frequently.  Two issues were presented - whether claimant was entitled to the partial commutation (i.e. whether the commutation was in claimant's best interests) and whether the amount of the commutation should be based on the amounts due at the time of filing (including the discount amount) or at some later date. On the issue of commutation, the court concluded that the issue was largely one of substantial interest.  The court noted that the "best interests" test of Dameron v. Newmann Bros. , 339 N.W.2d 160, 164 (Iowa 1983) was the governing standard.  Under this test, the agency is to consider the workers' age, education, mental and physical condition, life expectancy, family circumstances and living arrangements, and the reasonableness of the investment plan in determining

The Court of Appeals addressed the issue of penalty under the 2009 revisions to the penalty statute in Podgorniak v. Asplundh Tree Service , No. 12-0644 (Iowa App. Jan. 24, 2013).  Claimant had been awarded a running healing period, and after defendants' physicians opined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement, healing period benefits were terminated.  The arbitration decision found that penalty benefits were appropriate, and this action was reversed by the commissioner.  The commissioner's decision found that the action of the employer was "fairly debatable."  The district court affirmed the denial of penalty. The court first found that an issue concerning the specific amounts and dates of healing period benefits that were due had not been preserved by claimant and did not address this issue. The court discusses the 2009 amendments to the statute, and first considered an argument that since the words "fairly debatable" were not included i

In Mercy Hospital Iowa City v. Goodner , No. 12-0186 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2013), the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the commissioner that claimant was permanently totally disabled.  The court also concluded that defendants were judicially estopped from contesting liability for the claim, and that defendants were responsible for paying for one half of the cost of family therapy sessions for claimant.  The court reversed the finding of the agency that payment for bariatric surgery for claimant should be paid by the defendants. Claimant, a doctor was exposed to mononucleosis as a result of her work.  She later developed depression and chronic fatigue syndrome.  Defendants' doctors indicated that she may not have had mononucleosis, but did have fatigue and memory loss.  Claimant's doctors indicated that she had developed mononucleosis and this was one of a multitude of triggers for chronic fatigue syndrome.  Following these developments, claimant began gaining weight and