Court of Appeals Affirms 30% Industrial Disability Award, Finds that Statute of Limitations Did Not Bar Claims
In Heritage Care & Rehabilitation v. True, No. 14-0579 (Iowa App. March 11, 2015), the court affirms a decision of the commissioner holding that claimant's claim was timely filed and awarding 30% in industrial disability benefits.
Claimant injured her right shoulder while taking out the trash in 2010. She was provided medical treatment for a short period of time, but did not miss any days of work, so no weekly workers' compensation benefits were paid. Claimant initially filed a petition seeking only medical benefits, which was filed within the limitations period. Approximately a month before the hearing, and three days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, claimant sought to amend her petition to include a claim for temporary and permanent benefits. She paid a $100 filing fee at the same time the amendment was filed. The deputy hearing the case initially denied the motion to amend and ordered claimant to file a separate arbitration petition.
At hearing, the deputy reconsidered the motion to amend, and ruled that the motion to amend was proper, but continued the hearing for approximately three months to consider the allegations of permanency and temporary benefits. Following hearing, the deputy found claimant had a 30% industrial disability. The deputy found that the amendment of the petition was sufficient to bring the claim within the statute of limitations, in part because claimant had paid the $100 filing fee along with the amendment. The commissioner affirmed the decision, finding that because the agency had accepted the filing fee, which was paid prior to the expiration of the statute, the claim was appropriate.
On appeal, the employer argued that claimant needed to file an original notice or petition within the statute of limitations period, citing to section 85.26(3) of the Code, which provides that the filing of the petition "is the only act constituting 'commencement' for purposes of this section." The court of appeals rejected this argument, holding that nothing in section 85.26(3) required a separate original notice for each type of benefits the injured worker requests. The court concluded that claimant commenced a proceeding within the statute of limitations by filing the original medical only petition. Since the commissioner concluded that the amendment was permissible, claimant's claims were found to be filed within the statutory limitations period. The court further noted that under administrative rule 876 IAC 4.9(5), amendments to pleadings are to be freely given when justice requires. There was no prejudice to the employer because the hearing was continued until a later date.
On the industrial disability issue, claimant's IME physician had found that she had an 11% impairment rating as a result of her shoulder injury, and limitations of lifting of 15 pounds rarely, with no lifting over the shoulder. Defendants argued that because claimant retained her job, she did not sustain any industrial disability. Claimant noted that she quit a part time job because of the injury. The agency concluded that there was a 30% industrial disability, and the court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.
Claimant injured her right shoulder while taking out the trash in 2010. She was provided medical treatment for a short period of time, but did not miss any days of work, so no weekly workers' compensation benefits were paid. Claimant initially filed a petition seeking only medical benefits, which was filed within the limitations period. Approximately a month before the hearing, and three days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, claimant sought to amend her petition to include a claim for temporary and permanent benefits. She paid a $100 filing fee at the same time the amendment was filed. The deputy hearing the case initially denied the motion to amend and ordered claimant to file a separate arbitration petition.
At hearing, the deputy reconsidered the motion to amend, and ruled that the motion to amend was proper, but continued the hearing for approximately three months to consider the allegations of permanency and temporary benefits. Following hearing, the deputy found claimant had a 30% industrial disability. The deputy found that the amendment of the petition was sufficient to bring the claim within the statute of limitations, in part because claimant had paid the $100 filing fee along with the amendment. The commissioner affirmed the decision, finding that because the agency had accepted the filing fee, which was paid prior to the expiration of the statute, the claim was appropriate.
On appeal, the employer argued that claimant needed to file an original notice or petition within the statute of limitations period, citing to section 85.26(3) of the Code, which provides that the filing of the petition "is the only act constituting 'commencement' for purposes of this section." The court of appeals rejected this argument, holding that nothing in section 85.26(3) required a separate original notice for each type of benefits the injured worker requests. The court concluded that claimant commenced a proceeding within the statute of limitations by filing the original medical only petition. Since the commissioner concluded that the amendment was permissible, claimant's claims were found to be filed within the statutory limitations period. The court further noted that under administrative rule 876 IAC 4.9(5), amendments to pleadings are to be freely given when justice requires. There was no prejudice to the employer because the hearing was continued until a later date.
On the industrial disability issue, claimant's IME physician had found that she had an 11% impairment rating as a result of her shoulder injury, and limitations of lifting of 15 pounds rarely, with no lifting over the shoulder. Defendants argued that because claimant retained her job, she did not sustain any industrial disability. Claimant noted that she quit a part time job because of the injury. The agency concluded that there was a 30% industrial disability, and the court affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.
Disability Claims-Boating and Watercraft Accidents, Catastrophic Accident, Disability Claims, Automobile Accident, Car Accident, Motor Vehicle Accident, Slip and Fall & Trip and Fall.
ReplyDelete