Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Kramer v. Terex , No. 12-1370 (Iowa App. March 13, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed a decision of the commissioner denying further benefits on a review-reopening claim.  The original decision had awarded benefits of 40%, and on review-reopening the commissioner concluded that claimant had not met his burden of proof of demonstrating changed economic circumstances.  On appeal, the court cited the district court's "well-reasoned" decision and affirmed without comment.  IRAP 6.1203.  

In Gallo v. Penford Products Co. , No. 12-1472 (Iowa App. March 13, 2013), the court affirmed a 60% industrial disability award, and denied claimant's contention this his mental disorder arose out of and in the course of his work.  Claimant had suffered an accepted back injury while working, and continued to work after surgery.  Claimant was subsequently fired from his employment when it was found out that he had been found to be impersonating a physician for the purpose of obtaining narcotics.  Despite these facts, and the finding by the deputy, affirmed on appeal, that claimant was not a credible witness, claimant argued that he was permanently and totally disabled.  The evidence on this score was conflicting, with vocational experts reaching opposite conclusions about claimant's motivation to work, and ability to work in light of his back injury.  Particularly telling was the fact that claimant continued to work for two years following the injury, before he was fired for imp

On February 22, 2013, the Supreme Court denied further review in Merivic v. Gutierrez , No. 12-0240, a case that had earlier been heard by the Iowa Court of Appeals.   See Merivic v. Gutierrez , No. 12-0240 (Iowa App. Nov. 15, 2012).  In Merivic , the court of appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner in Lovic v.   Construction Products, Inc.,  No. 5015390 (App. Dec. 27, 2007), was appropriate.  The  Lovic  decision had concluded that a lack of English language skills was a factor to be determined in considering the extent of industrial disability, and also concluded that the failure of a claimant to learn English was not to be considered in determining the client's motivation to work.  In Merivic , the employer had directly attacked Lovic  as being wrongly decided, and urged the court to find that Lovic  was not controlling.  The decision of the court of appeals found that the employer's position was an impermissible collateral attack on the Lovic  case, and reje