Iowa Workers' Compensation

Claimant in Sterling Commercial Roofing, Inc. v. Berzle , No. 15-0351 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015), sustained a shoulder injury at work.  On substantial evidence grounds, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner's decision finding a permanent disability that arose out of claimant's work activities was supported by substantial evidence, as the commissioner had considered the competing evidence on this issue. The employer also argued that the determination claimant was permanently and totally disabled was illogical, irrational and wholly unjustifiable.  The Court noted that claimant was a 56 year old roofer with restrictions of lifting no more than 2 pounds, with difficulties in school and no skills other than in roofing.  This was not an irrational finding by the commissioner, according to the court, and the decision was affirmed.

Plaintiff in Wusk v Evangelical Retirement Homes , No. 15-0166 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015) asserted that she was wrongfully terminated from employment as a result of pursuing a workers' compensation claim.  The district court ruled in the employer's favor on summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff suffered a work related injury to her arm and pursued a workers' compensation claim.  On November 5, 2012, claimant was released from all restrictions and was cleared for regular duty work. Claimant called and left a message for her supervisor about this, and her supervisor called back within a day and left a message for claimant.  After this, claimant did not speak to anyone with the employer.  Her workers' compensation claim was settled on July 9, 2013.  Claimant was terminated in August of 2013, because she had not scheduled any hours and had not followed the terms of the pool agreement.  Claimant indicated she contacted the nursing home after this t

In Pettengill v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC , No. 14-1511 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015), the court dealt with a situation where the commissioner had concluded that penalty benefits were not owed despite the fact that the employer had not contemporaneously conveyed the reasons for the denial of benefits to claimant.  The district court reversed and remanded and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. Claimant suffered a back injury, the extent of which was in serious dispute.  Dr. Runde provided initial treatment for the back pain, including physical therapy.  He also provided permanent restrictions for claimant. An MRI demonstrated a disk extrusion at L5-S1.  Dr. Broghammer indicated this was not due to the work injury, Dr. Neiman disagreed and though surgery was necessary.  Dr. Abernathey did not believe surgery was necessary and thought that the injury should have resolved within six weeks. The commissioner concluded that from February of 2011 until

In Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, No. 14-2062 (Iowa Dec. 18, 2015), the Court confirmed that the discovery rule applied to traumatic injury cases as well as cumulative injury cases.  The commissioner had ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Clark v. City of Spencer , No. 5017329 (App. Sept. 11, 2007), that the discovery rule did not apply to cases involving traumatic injuries.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. The Court first discussed the purpose and character of the Iowa's workers' compensation system, noting that the costs of a work injury should be borne by the industry itself and not dependent on individual fault or negligence.  The "grand bargain" providing immunity to employers from potentially large tort lawsuits in exchange for a claimant not have to demonstrate negligence was discussed at length, as was the assurance of prompt payments in the

Pro Publica, which has been investigating workers' compensation systems throughout the country, has today issued a report on the impact of Tyson Foods on workers' compensation throughout the country and specifically in Iowa.  https://www.propublica.org/article/tyson-foods-secret-recipe-for-carving-up-workers-comp.  The article discusses the impact of the food giant on changing workers' compensation systems throughout the country and specifically addresses Tyson's role in seeking to have former Commissioner Chris Godfrey terminated by the Governor. The article details the efforts of the Association of Business and Industry and Tyson to have Commissioner Godfrey fired, including the preparation of a lengthy list of cases that allegedly demonstrated the bias of the commissioner toward claimants.  Ultimately, because the Governor could not fire the Commissioner under Iowa law, he reduced his salary by over $30,000. Pro Publica's piece demonstrates how corporate inte

Carl A. Nelson & Co. v. Sloan , No. 15-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 25, 2015), involves issues concerning causation and intervening cause as well as the payment of medical bills.  The district court upheld the commissioner's decision concerning causation, but did not allow payment of medical bills directly to claimant. Claimant suffered an injury to his back on August 15, 2011 and was returned to full duty work on August 24.  On October 30, 2011, claimant and a friend were moving go-kart frames into a trailer.  Claimant had a sudden onset of pain and numbness in the back and legs while doing this.  He subsequently had surgery and was found to be at MMI on January 14, 2013. At the arbitration level, the deputy concluded that the go-kart incident was an intervening and superseding cause for claimant's back problems and denied benefits.  On appeal, the commissioner reversed, finding that the greater weight of the evidence supported the finding that claimant's work injury was a

In Eaton Corp. v. Archer, No. 15-0255 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner addressed a claim where claimant developed carpal tunnel syndrome.  There was a dispute concerning causation and a dispute over whether claimant was able to return to substantially similar work.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's injury was related to his work activities, and concluded that claimant could not return to former work, given the continuing pain in his hands. Following the injury, claimant missed work because of the pain in his hands and was discharged by the employer.  On appeal, the primary issue was the healing period issue.  The employer claimed that claimant could return to his former work, and cited their IME physician, Dr. Hsu, in support.  Claimant countered with the IME of Dr. Gammel.  The agency concluded, based on the opinion of Dr. Gammel and claimant's testimony that he could not return to substantially similar work. The district court affirmed and on appeal t

In Harrison v. Greenfield Manor, No. 15-0223 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner awarded claimant a 5% industrial disability award, based on the fact that the doctors who had examined claimant and found that his injury was minor and did not lead to restrictions.  The district court and court of appeals affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.

In Tameklo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 15-0222 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner addressed a situation where claimant suffered a shoulder injury and later developed avascular necrosis.  The commissioner concluded that the avascular necrosis was related to work and awarded healing period benefits. Tyson challenged the finding that claimant's avascular necrosis arose out of employment. The first two physicians that saw claimant did not conclusively indicate one way or another whether the injury was related to employment.  Claimant's IME physician, Dr. Bansal, concluded that the avascular necrosis was related to employment, noting that claimant did not have avascular necrosis prior to the surgery, and that the shoulder that was injured was the only location where claimant had avascular necrosis.  The district court reversed the decision of the commissioner, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the commissioner,finding that the commissioner's

Paylor v. Dee Zee Inc., No. 14-1570 (Iowa App. Oct. 28, 2015)  involved a claim that was dismissed by the commissioner, who found that claimant's back injury and surgery were not related to his work injury.  The court notes that its scope of review was severely circumscribed and noted that judgment calls were left to the agency. The court affirmed the decision on substantial evidence grounds, noting that the agency carefully assessed the medical evidence, crediting certain medical providers over others and assessing the quality of the opinions, based on the medical history or lack thereof.  Because medical causation presented a question of fact vested in the discretion of the commission, and there was no abuse of this discretion, the decision of the agency was affirmed.

The list below is a compendium of appeal decisions decided by the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner or his designee.   The list does not provide a detailed analysis of each case, but simply a synopsis of the results of the case, with brief discussions of interesting issues in various cases: December 2017 Young v. Bridgestone-Firestone and Second Injury Fund , No. 5035165 (App. Dec. 29, 2017) - Claimant had previously entered into two agreements for settlement with the employer and later brought a review-reopening claim and a claim against the Fund.  On review-reopening, claimant was awarded additional benefits for her arm injuries.  Defendants were ordered to pay $22,603.79 in penalties against the employer.  No benefits were awarded against the Fund (Walshire).  19 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Clark v. Concrete Central , No. 5049601 (App. Dec. 28, 2017) - The deputy concluded that although  claimant established a work injury, it was a temporary aggrav