Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Hansen v. Snap-On Tools Manufacturing Company , No. 12-1038 (Iowa App. Feb. 27, 2013), among the issues addressed by the court was the questions of successive disabilities under section 85.34(7)(b) of the Code.  The court seems to conclude that section 85.34(7)(b) does not apply to unscheduled injuries, which would, if affirmed, have a serious impact on the current law concerning that section of the act. Hansen  also addresses issues concerning costs, extent of impairment, healing period and temporary partial benefits. Claimant sustained two injuries at work, a left shoulder injury in 2005 and an injury to her right hand and arm in 2007 which was traumatic.  The shoulder injury was cumulative, although there was medical evidence that there was a later acute injury to the shoulder superimposed on the cumulative process.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to 15% industrial disability, did not specifically accept or reject claimant's computation of healing pe

The case of Big Tomato Pizza v Cloud , No. 12-1291 (Iowa App. Feb. 27, 2013), involves substantial evidence, and as is common, an affirmance of the decision of the commissioner.  Mr. Cloud was a pizza delivery driver for Big Tomato, and when he was getting out of his car, a customer who was being chased out of the restaurant struck him, there was a scuffle and claimant suffered injuries, including a collapsed lung. The claim was denied, and claimant had no treatment following the hospitalization.  He began having nightmares about the incident. At hearing, defendants presented testimony that indicated that Mr. Cloud was actively pursuing the customer far from the premises of Big Tomato.  The deputy rejected this testimony, finding that claimant as the victim of an assault.  The commissioner affirmed and found that the injury arose out of an in the course of employment.  The commissioner concluded that section 85.16(1), which denies compensation for an employee's willful intent to

In yet another decision demonstrating that if the question presented is one of substantial evidence, the party seeking to overturn the agency's decision is not going to prevail at the appellate level, the court in  Talton v. Fleur Delis Motors Inns, Inc. , No. 12-0999 (Iowa App. Feb. 27, 2013) affirmed the decision of the commissioner finding that claimant's injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment, denying healing period benefits, and denying alternate medical care. Claimant suffered a stipulated work injury when a can of tomatoes fell on her foot.  She developed arthritis, which the treating doctor did not believe was work related, but which Dr. Mandracchia opined was work related.  Dr. Simon indicated that claimant developed an antalgic gait as a result of the foot injury.  The deputy found the injuries had arisen out of claimant's employment, but concluded that claimant had not reached maximum medial improvement and still in an healing period.  Th

In Sanchez v. Celadon Trucking Services , No. 12-0895 (Iowa App. Feb. 13, 2013), the Court of Appeals addressed a review-reopening question which was combined with questions concerning the proceeds of a third party action, and the employer's subrogation rights from that proceeding.  Claimant had originally been awarded a 25% industrial disability, and later filed for review reopening, and also sought an adjudication of the extent of the employer's remaining lien from the third-party settlement. The deputy found that claimant was not entitled to additional benefits, finding that claimant lacked credibility. The deputy also found that the employer's calculation of the lien was correct and ordered that the lien be honored by claimant.  The commissioner summarily affirmed the decision on both points.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. The court notes that on the review-reopening questions, its task was limited to determining whether substantial ev

In Cooper v. Kirkwood Community College , No. 11-1755 (Iowa App. Feb. 13, 2013), the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner that claimant's injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.  The case had been before the Court of Appeals previously, at which time the court concluded that claimant was required to wait until the agency had made a determination on rehearing before filing a petition for judicial review.  When a subsequent petition was filed, the district court concluded that the petition had been timely filed, but found that claimant's conditions did not arise out of her employment. Defendants first argued that because the second petition for judicial review was filed until after the dismissal of the first petition, it had been untimely filed.  The court disagreed, and indicated that because of the earlier interlocutory appeal, the 20 day "deemed denied" period for the rehearing was tolled pending the decision of the district court and

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 12-0592 (Iowa App. February 13, 2013), the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the decision of the commissioner and district court concluding that claimant had suffered a compensable shoulder injury.  The court finds that although claimant's story of how the injury occurred might have seemed improbable, it was not so outrageous as to be unbelievable.  Since the conclusion was supported by substantial evidence, the award of benefits was affirmed.