Iowa Workers' Compensation

In  Weitz Co. v. Selin , No. 13-0939 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the award of additional medical benefits to claimant.  The employer had argued that the injuries were not causally connected to the workplace injury, and further rejected the argument that certain medical expenses were unauthorized. Claimant suffered an accepted back injury, and had surgery with Dr. Nelson, who ultimately found claimant had reached MMI and suffered a 10% impairment.  Claimant indicated that he was having continuing problems, and filed an application for alternate medical care.  This was dismissed as defendants denied compensability.  Claimant sought care from Drs. Kimelman, McGuire and Igram.  At hearing, claimant was awarded PPD, but the request for additional medical expenses was denied by the deputy.  The commissioner reversed on the medical expenses question. The court of appeals found that the facts concerning the medical expenses were not in dispute and that the ques

Claimant in Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Wander , No. 13-0567 (Iowa App. January 23, 2014) suffered a back injury while lifting a wood storm door core onto an assembly line.  Claimant was provided several high-dose steroidal regimens.  A MRI showed a disk bulge and possible avascular necrosis in the hips.  Ultimately, claimant had a total hip replacement with Dr. Noiseux.  Dr. Noiseux related this to the work accident.  Claimant also developed necrosis in the shoulder, and this was related to the steroidal treatment by Dr. Emerson.  Dr. Galles agreed with this assessment.  At hearing, the parties stipulated that the shoulder necrosis was work-related, but not the hip necrosis (primarily because the hip necrosis was diagnosed just after the steroidal treatment had begun). The deputy found that the hip condition was related to employment.  On appeal, the commissioner affirmed "noting the deficiencies in the opinions of all the physicians who rendered opinions about Wander's con

In Plumrose USA v. Hathaway , No. 13-0495 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2014), claimant suffered an injury to his right knee when he fell down a flight of stairs, cause a medial meniscal tear and patella tendon tear.  Claimant had a past history of knee injuries, including three surgeries.  He had been told that he would need knee replacement surgery at some point in the future.  Following the accident, conservative care was initially provided, but ultimately a total knee replacement was recommended. Defendants denied the claim, based on a doctor's report that there was no way of knowing when a TKR would have been needed.  This same doctor later indicated that the TKR was directly related to claimant's acute exacerbation of his chronic knee arthritis, and opined that there was a 50% impairment to the leg.  The arbitration and appeal decisions concluded that the knee injury was compensable, and ordered payment of temporary and permanency benefits. Before the court, the employer argued

Wal-Mart Stores v. Henle , Nos. 13-0366 & 13-0721 (Iowa App. January 9, 2014) involved a claimant who had a serious injury when a sixty pound stack of plastic totes  fell 15 feet, striking her head and left shoulder.  Following treatment, claimant returned to work at Wal-Mart, working four hour days.  She was continued as a full-time employee and received partial disability benefits.  She often missed work because of her headaches, and these days were considered as excused absences, "which was an exception to the company's usual attendance policy. The deputy found claimant permanently and totally disabled and ordered benefits beginning on May 30, 2006, "but for those dates when the employer has provided claimant with accommodated employment."  The claim was affirmed on appeal.  Wal-Mart filed a petition for judicial review, and claimant moved for entry of judgment under section 86.42.  Ultimately, the decision was affirmed and the judgment was entered, with a s

In GITS Manufacturing Co. v. Frank , No. 13-0665 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2014), the Court of Appeals, taking a very aggressive stance on substantial evidence, concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant was an odd lot employee was not supported by substantial evidence, largely because claimant had not sought other employment following her injury. Claimant suffered a cumulative lung injury from her work as a welder at GITS.  The evidence demonstrated that claimant was limited to sedentary work, and the deputy concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she could complete job retraining and go back to work at her age and with her physical condition.  The deputy found that claimant was an odd lot employee, and this finding was affirmed on appeal., and by the district court. The court noted that the issue before it was whether the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.  The court first addressed the odd lot doctrine, and noted th