Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Des Moines Asphalt & Paving v. Gomez, No. 13-1160 (Iowa App. March 26, 2014), the Court of Appeals summarily affirms an award of permanent total disability for a client who was assaulted by a co-worker at a job site.  Claimant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.  On appeal, the court adopts the district court's reasoning and conclusions, pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(b), (d) and (e).  Although it would appear as though the attack on claimant might have been defended on the basis that this was the willful act of a third party directed against the employee for reasons personal to the employee under section 85.16(3), this was not discussed in the decision of the court of appeals, nor was the issue raised before the commissioner. An Application for Further Review was filed with the Supreme Court and denied on July 16, 2014.

In Sullivan v. Cummins Filtration-Lake Mills, No. 13-0658 (Iowa App. March 12, 2004), claimant argued that section 85.34(7) of the Iowa Code, the successive disabilities statute, operated to enhance the degree of disability to her hands.  The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the agency, finds that claimant failed to demonstrate that a second injury to claimant's hand was compensable, and therefore section 85.34(7) was not applicable.  The court also found that the commissioner had explained his reasoning sufficiently in the decision and concluded that no award of alternate medical care was applicable as the claimant had failed to prove that her injury was related to her work. Claimant had an initial injury to her right hand in 1999, was paid benefits for her injury and returned to work symptom free.  She later developed symptoms in both hands in 2011, and settled this case for an additional payment for the injury to the right arm.  The two injuries that were before the court were

In Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House , No. 843 NW2d 885 (Iowa 2014), the Supreme Court, which had accepted further review, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and concluded that the agency decision was supported by substantial evidence, thereby affirming the permanent total disability award of the agency.  The agency had previously found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled, a finding that had been affirmed by the district court. At the Court of Appeals level, a 2-1 majority of the court had concluded that the decision of the agency had not been supported by the evidence.  The court had concluded that the doctors who had found causation did not know of a second injury that claimant had sustained at work after he had been found to have reached maximum medical improvement.  The Court of Appeals found that the treaters had not known of this incident and that the IME doctor's opinion was internally inconsistent because it relied on the opinion of Dr. Hatfield, one of