Iowa Workers' Compensation

Cooksey v. Cargill, Inc., No. 12-1729 (Iowa App. Oct. 2, 2013), is a case in which claimant filed three alternate medical care proceedings against the employer.  In the first two proceedings, the employer agreed to provide the care sought by claimant and that care was provided.  In the first proceeding, a hearing was held, but the parties came to an agreement that claimant could see Dr. Abernathey and claimant would voluntarily dismiss his claim for alternate medical care.  In the second proceeding, claimant voluntarily dismissed before hearing because defendants agreed to provide the care requested.  In the third proceeding, the employer denied liability for the claim, after getting reports from two doctors questioning causation, and the alternate medical care hearing was dismissed under 876 IAC 4/48(7). Claimant, after having the AMC petition dismissed, filed a request for a ruling on the petition, based on due process grounds and judicial estoppel.  The deputy issued the final dec

In JBS Swift & Co. v. Rodriguez Contreras , No. 13-0172 (Iowa App. Oct. 2, 2013), a case handled by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne &Ozga, the court of appeals affirms the findings of the commissioner concluding that claimant was credible, increasing the industrial disability award from 20 to 60% and imposing costs against the employer. At the arbitration level, the deputy had indicated that the claimant was mostly credible.  The employer argued that because the deputy had found that claimant was "credible for the most part," the entire appeal decision was subverted.  The court of appeals noted that the finding that claimant was mostly credible was made because the deputy indicated that many of the questions posed were leading questions.  The court found that "read in context, any doubt expressed by the deputy involves the form of questioning rather than the resulting answers provided by Contreras," and concludes that the credibility finding was supported by

Claimant was exposed to chemicals while working with his employer, Jeld-Win, Inc.  He developed a sensitivity to those chemicals, missed work because of this, and ultimately had to leave his employment with the company because of his injury.  The agency concluded that claimant had suffered a 25% industrial loss rather than the permanent total disability urged by claimant.  The agency also concluded that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits.  In Deckert v. Jeld-Wen , No. 13-0288 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The court found that the agency had provided a detailed explanation for the determination that claimant had suffered only a 25% industrial loss.  The agency had noted that the only restriction on claimant was not being exposed to isocyanate or diisocyanates in the environment.  Claimant had rejected an offer by the company to move to one of their other plants where he would not be exposed.  According to the

Zaglauer v. Mercy Medical Center , No. 13-0160 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2013), represents another in a long line of cases where the court of appeals affirms the decision of the agency on substantial evidence grounds.  Claimant had tripped at work, causing a torn rotator cuff as well as CRPS, according to some doctors.  At arbitration hearing, claimant was provided with a 15% industrial award for the shoulder injury, but was denied benefits for depression and CRPS, because she had not shown these conditions arose out of her employment.  This finding was affirmed by the commissioner and the district court.  The agency found that claimant was not credible. The court finds that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's depression and CRPS had not arisen out of her employment.  The court noted that the doctors who opined her depression and CRPS were causally related to her injury admitted to not having her full history.  The court noted that the commissioner was respon

In Sharp v. University of Northern Iowa , No. 12-2326 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2013), the agency had concluded that claimant had failed to prove medical or legal causation and failed to give notice of her injuries.  The court, without elaboration, affirmed the decision of the agency under Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203.

In a case which runs counter to most of the cases that appear in these synopses, the Iowa Court of Appeals in Mike Brooks, Inc.   v. House , No. 13-0303 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2013), held that the decision of the agency was not supported by substantial evidence.  This despite the fact that there was no medical evidence supporting the contention of defendants.  Judge Vaitheswaran dissented and would have affirmed the case on substantial evidence grounds. Claimant had suffered an admitted injury in March of 2007.  Claimant returned to work, but testified that he continued to experience significant back problems while working.  In January of 2008, he reported to the company doctor that he had pushed a door at work and had felt increased pain as a result of that incident.  He was seen by a surgeon, Dr. Hatfield, who ultimately performed three surgeries.  Claimant returned to work briefly following the first surgery but was unable to continue working as a truck driver. Dr. Hatfield provide

In Quaker Oats v. Farar , No. 13-0195 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed the commissioner's award of healing period, PPD and medical benefits, finding that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.  Defendants had argued that claimant's knee problems were due to arthritis rather than his work, and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  The court noted that although the weight of the medical evidence was to the contrary, the agency held that claimant's injury had arisen out of and in the course of employment, and noted that the opinion of Dr. Manshadi was sufficient to support a finding of causation.  The court also found that substantial evidence supported the fact that claimant's DVT had arisen as a result of the knee injury and knee replacement, although again there was conflicting evidence.  The employer had also asked for the case to be remanded to the agency to make a more complete record

In Cardinal IG Company v. Crozier , No. 13-0149 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court without opinion pursuant to Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203.  The court found that action of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.

In Hy-Vee v. Schmit , No. 12-2294 (Iowa App. Aug. 7, 2013), the court of appeals concluded that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence and affirms the action of the agency and district court without opinion.  Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a), (c), (d).